Your assumption is predicated on the notion that everyone is biased, so we can't really know anything. It calls on us to abandon all research and just rely on our own opinions and biases to draw conclusions.
Spare us the melodrama. All humans are biased and interpret evidence in ways that maximize the personal benefit and minimize the personal harm. This is self evident fact that should be obvious anyone paying attention. That does not mean that we 'can't know anything'. It means any discussion of "evidence" must also include a discussion of biases of the people collecting the evidence.
I also gave a concrete example of how bias affects SIS research. Specifically, if the SIS do not increase the rate at which addicts get off drugs then they are failure. Yet most of the headlines are about how "lives are saved" by preventing overdoses. If all they do is prolong addictions by reducing the incentive to clean up then SIS would be very bad for society even if a few lives are saved. Different researchers could come up with very different conclusions by simply choose with "evidence" to emphasize. There is no need to fabricate any evidence.
The reality is you know this, however, you simply assume that scientists saying things which you disagree with biased and those that you agree with are paragons of objectivity. It is hypocritical nonsense. Researchers telling you what you want to hear are just as biased and those saying things you don't want to hear.
Home
Contact
Login
Register