“Scientists often insist that they follow the data wherever it leads. A study has suggested, however, that their politics may often also guide them.”
In a study of the effect of political outlook on science, 71 teams of academics were independently given the same data set and asked to develop findings based on that data.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/do-scientists-follow-data-or-politics-0pc30zqmr
“Scientists often insist that they follow the data wherever it leads. A study has suggested, however, that their politics may often also guide them.”
In a study of the effect of political outlook on science, 71 teams of academics were independently given the same data set and asked to develop findings based on that data.
What the academics did not know is that they were grouped by political philosophies.
The academics ended up developing “wildly different results” based on the same data set.
The point is that even when a scientist claims to be operating purely in the realm of ideologically neutral science, the scientist’s world view always pokes through.
Even when dealing with hard data sets, there are always judgement calls to be made. The world view strongly influences these judgements.
This study was on the politics of immigration in Britain, but the point is equally valid for historical science efforts such as estimating the age of the earth.
The critics of young earth creationists essentially claim that their science is trustworthy and those who oppose them are ideologically biased.
Truthfully: everyone’s science is biased. Some of us are willing to admit it.