![Trust the science [4000x4000 - 2.59MB]](https://pic8.co/sh/0MmKkX.jpg){kind=link}
But interpretation of results can differ.
If your funding depends on interpreting the results the 'right' way, then objectivity goes out the window. We have seen this with so-called 'climate science' (calling it by its original name, 'climatology' was not good enough, apparently) and in the recent confrontation between Fauci and Rand Paul, where Fauci tried to base his claims on the 'authority' of experts who were all conveniently beholden to him for money.
That’s a different issue. I was talking about the fields as a whole. You may replicate a set of experiments. But may be able to provide an alternative but equally valid explanation for the results. The way to decide between two hypothesis is to do more experiments.
Once you bring in dollars and politics everything goes to shit. There are scientists out there that just want to do good science. But you’ll never hear their name or see them on TV.
Basically peer review cannot spot fraud.
And its really easy to defraud studues and look how many drug studies fromusa are conducted by outsourcing to Pakistan etc.
Untraceable participants.
(post is archived)