In Defense of Science

Humans are fallible. We tend to orient toward self-benefit, ego, bias, subjectivity, and a host of other psychosocial complications (conscious and subconscious) that can hamper our ability to objectively reason and progress beyond what is generally accepted.

This is not unique to humans employed in scientific pursuits (though it could be argued that it is diminished relative to pursuits with less stringent methodologies).

The important difference is that science has open, verifiable and consistently-structured methods to diminish (and ultimately, eradicate) those issues over time on a study-by-study basis.

While one group of scientists may potentially be biased toward outcomes that benefit themselves and/or their employer (pharmaceuticals, for example), the impact of their results are limited and their falsifiability demonstrated by peer review, competition, conflict with other parallel but unassociated studies, reproducibility of testing throughout the scientific world, etc., etc..

To draw conclusions of science based on flawed or limited studies, political exploits, or otherwise popular trends in questionable theories is to misunderstand science itself.

The process of science isn't like building a stone statue of truth which must be adhered to ad infinitum, but rather a working set of theories that are continually refined, overturned, expounded upon, etc., over time, in the aggregate.

Science purges flaws by not depending on the impossible infallibility of scientists for its success, but rather on the scientific method and the collective and evolving progression of its products (studies, counter-studies, data, new theories, etc.).