You can trust Genuine Science with confidence!

Krishna: NO!

Genuine Scientists never do such things. Because they think that it is better to accept things as they are and not as they would like them to be. Moreover, it is against scientific method.

What you said is followed by pseudo-scientists and some people of religion.

The big difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in approach. While a pseudo-science is set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, a science is set up to challenge its claims and look for evidence that might prove it false. In other words, pseudo-science seeks confirmations and science seeks falsifications. Scientific claims are falsifiable -- that is, they are claims where you could set out what observable outcomes would be impossible if the claim were true -- while pseudo-scientific claims fit with any imaginable set of observable outcomes. What this means is that you could do a test that shows a scientific claim to be false, but no conceivable test could show a pseudo-scientific claim to be false. Sciences are testable, pseudo-sciences are not (1).

The important difference seems to be in which approach gives better logical justification for knowledge claims. A pseudo-science may make you feel like you've got a good picture of how the world works, but you could well be wrong about it. If a scientific picture of the world is wrong, that hard-headed scientific attitude means the chances are good that we'll find out we're wrong and switch to a different picture. Science discards it if some idea or theory was found wrong. The scientific attitude is aimed at locating and removing the false claims -- something that doesn't happen in pseudo-sciences (1).

Differences between science and pseudo-science

Image Source: Google

The important difference between science and pseudo-science is a difference in approach. While pseudo-science is only set up to look for evidence that supports its claims, science also accepts challenges and looks for evidence that might prove it false.
If a scientific depiction of the world is wrong, the scientific outlook allows us to accept this and seek a different picture. The scientific position is aimed at locating and removing the false claims - something that doesn't happen in pseudo-sciences. Instead of starting with the facts and reaching a conclusion, the pseudo-science promoters first take a conclusion and try to cherry pick facts to support it. Of course, sometimes there will be no facts, so they have to 'invent' them. (2)

Some people do P-hacking and try to hoodwink others. P-value hacking, also known as data dredging, data fishing, data snooping or data butchery, is an exploitation of data analysis in order to discover patterns which would be presented as statistically significant, when in reality, there is no underlying effect. But your peer reviewers and others in the field easily find out these things and no scientist can escape the punishment if he or she tries this.

Any unreasonable explanations and anything that violates the laws of science are by definition non-scientific.

Science has several inbuilt mechanisms to fight these types of biases you mentioned.

For example, ‘double blind trials’, where neither the participants, nor the researchers, know who is getting what and where the experimental data comes from.

Inviting Falsification is another one. If nobody can falsify your results, then what you did is right!

Peer-reviewing , done pre and post publication of your results will checkmate all your biases.

Peer-reviewing ( art work by Dr. Krishna Kumari Challa)

From http://www.kkartfromscience.com

Reproducing the results several times by researchers around the world will establish the facts and is a testimony for your genuine work.

With so much scrutiny going around your work, nobody can escape the type of things you mentioned.

You trust science because you yourself can do the experiments using scientific methods and test your theories or trust the ones done by others using scientific methods and subjected to thorough scrutiny. Peer-reviewing, testing others' experiments by repeating them, retractions of papers if the results are found not to be true - one cannot escape punishment and shame if fraud is involved. Nobody can break-free from these controls and hawk eyes and constant glare of the experts in his or her field. Only people who have undergone all this fire-walk to prove themselves know how difficult it is to stand as a genuine scientist - I have first hand experience in this field - where people try to rip you apart if you are not truthful and confident about your work. If something has passed all these filters, then you can be reasonably confident that it is genuine (3).

And that is the beauty of genuine science! You can trust it with confidence!

Footnotes:

1. Be alert - Pseudo-Science and Anti-Science are on the Prowl!
2. Love Science, not its impostors!
3. Standing Up For Science : Showing Reasons Why Science Should Be Tru...