What is the argument in favor of science being a social construct?

I have looked this up on the Web and it all seems like gobbledygook. Here is my naive understanding of why this idea is nonsensical.

The definitions I have seen for scientific method mention observations, but mostly these observations are measurements of meaningful quantities like mass, volume and temperature. Basically, what experiments do is show that one set of measurements result from another set. I see no social constructs in this. Meters and kilograms are universally understood and agreed upon.

Before someone else mentions it, let me bring up Einstein’s well known quotation: Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts. I agree, but this is only to say that not everything important comes under the view of science. Those things that do fall under science are those things that are measurable.

What about the social sciences? What exactly is being measured when someone fills out a questionnaire, and how exactly does one calibrate whatever it is that is being measured? I am a bit skeptical. This gets to the second part of Einstein’s quotation about not everything measurable counting for anything. If you want to argue that the social sciences might be social constructs, I will not put up much of an argument, though you are free to feel otherwise.

What about the elusive search in physics for a theory of everything? It is embarrassing at an academic level not to be able to tie relativity and quantum mechanics together, but from a practical point of view there is no problem. Relativity and quantum mechanics are used on a regular basis for designing nuclear reactors and electronic devices. There is no brick wall that people run up against for lack of a TOE. As for all the competing theories, they don’t count for anything until such time as there is experimental (measured) confirmation.