[biophysboy]

You can believe in a phenomena and still do good science. It all depends on if your exp design is free of bias. Randomizing, blinding, instrumentation, pre-registration, statistical rigor - there all sorts of ways to do this. I say this because I think non-scientists regularly say that science is biased because scientists are biased. The cool thing about science is you don't have to have any pretense of objectivity as a person as long as your experiment is independent.

[reliabilityguy]

> I say this because I think non-scientists regularly say that science is biased because scientists are biased.

As any other field, the science is as good as the scientist that produced it. For example, there is a serious reproducibility crisis in multiple fields, like psychology, and social sciences. In the latter it is hard to say of its due to systemic educational failure of the PhD students in those fields, or that the field and personal politics are merging too tightly.

Unfortunately, all it takes is one bad scientist to discredit the rest, e.g., Wakefield.

[biophysboy]

I know what you are saying, but I'm arguing that science is great because it produces better output than the people that make it as long as they stick to good methods.

As for reproducibility, its my opinion that it has more to do with incentives and constraints than the ethics or intellectual capacity of the researcher (although those are real components too)