Science is one of the fields that prospers most from opinions. Different opinions are what hypothesis build on, which leads to the development of theories and either proving them wrong or right.
Opinions are essential for scientific progress. It just that one of the core concepts about those opinions is that you should be able to proof them right or wrong at some point in time and transform them into scientific facts.
But Science can't accept opinions - maybe hypothesis are born out of opinions in the first place, but it's only when a scientist clearly establish an hypothesis that it becomes "science". I know, this is pure semantics, but I feel the difference is real though ! What I meant essentially is that you can't have an opinion on hard cold facts - like Earth revolving around the Sun. You can't have an opinion on crows being black, because appart from the rare white ones, crows ARE black. Stuff like that.
Those semantics are imho super important. There are basically two kinds of opinions, those which can be validated and those which can not. Only the first kind of opinions can be topics in science. And 'able to validated' includes stuff we can only theoretical validate, a lof of scientific works took a long time to validate or disprove.
In art we deal with both kinds of opinions, which seems a constant source for misunderstandings. ;-)
PS. Hypothesis are basically elaborated formulated opinions. ;-)
