Not sure how we would go about doing a double blind study with fossils but if you say so...
I realize that wasn't your point, but it does illustrate the different validation demands inherent in the various fields of science. While there is a possibility of a single scientist finding what he wants to find rather than interpreting the data accurately, the fossils are there for all scientists to see. Unless you are positing a huge conspiracy the chance that an incorrect or horribly biased interpretation will survive the scrutiny of many scientists, some who are at loggerheads with each other, is pretty thin.
If there were many skeptical scientists looking to see flaws in the logic of a particular piecing together of bone fragments, it would be a good thing.
You are correct you can't do double-blind studies, my point was that D-B studies are evidence that it is an accepted fact that even scientists will see what they are looking for. So in areas where you by nature are going to know what you are looking for, it takes a lot more skepticism and critical thinking.
It would be nice to see at least ONE scientist willing to hypothesize that this creature actually didn't have a skull, and see where it leads them.
Sure, it sounds stupid -- but to someone who is convinced of their position, many alternatives to what they think they see sound stupid.
In this sense, an evolutionist might argue that the politicized nature of the evolution debate makes it harder for real science becuase the scientists are afraid to ask too many skeptical questions since they fear the creationists will jump on those questions and use them to debunk evolution.
That is another danger that has to be dealt with -- the fear of aiding "the enemy" causing people to not question sufficiently.