Chess is certainly not "science" because it's a game and not a natural phenomenon to be studied.
Chess is a game in which each turn is a logical puzzle to be solved.
For some people it's more than just a game, it's a way of life. But a way of life is not necessarily science or art.
solving a logical problem utilizes the scientific theory does it not?
The truth is, Chess is whatever you make it.
Studying the game and learning the secrets of Chess could enrich your life in many ways. For some it's just a game, something they have played once or twice and it stops here. For others though, it's a way of life, and a conduit for creativity and self expression.
Mikhail Tal was one of those players who was considered to play with a certain 'artistry'. Creating seemingly impossible attacking positions, pressuring the opponent to breaking point. When playing I always look for creative combinations, rather than playing dogmatic, obvious mechanical moves.
Art in itself is abstract, and a view of art depends on what one considers to be art. There is no concrete ''This is art, and this is not."
When science is mentioned in Chess, we have to remember a lot of legendary players were great mathematicians. Chess isn't scientific in my opinion, and knowing quantum physics isn't going to improve your game. 
Many of the problems we face over the board we can translate into our every day lives. Pressure, Being creative, being passive, defensive, or even aggressive. We always want to make the best move in Chess, and life itself for that matter.
..a very good thought..