[peatmoss]

A thousand times this.

There is absolutely an institutionalist argument to be made against how science is practiced by fallible and biased humans. However, I've never heard of any method I'd trust more.

Science seems to be the only fair process for adjudicating when factual claims are at odds. I'd hate to rely on rhetoric, as that certainly isn't less subject to human fallibility.

At the same time, we need to be thoughtful about what are scientific questions and which are normative/ value questions.

Science could help us figure out whether ground up humans make good plant fertilizer. Humans need to make a value judgement on whether or not to fertilize plants with ground up humans.

Believing in the scientific method, recognizing the institutional ways that we can systematically fall short of its lofty platonic ideal, and understanding the limitations of science to tell us the "right" social policy is what I want.