Probably my remarks about Global Warming science. If we're speaking in terms of the scientific method, is Global Warming science "scientific?" What I mean by that is it depends on simulation — the construction of computer models that can run the mountains of climatological data and whatever other relevant data the designer of the model wants to put in it. The point is: How can we really tell whether such models are good proxies for the system behavior they seek to explicate? The disagreements in climate science seem to be largely the result of the models used, and evidently there are many.
How "objective" can such models be, when their construction is "subjective" — the modeler must decide what goes into the simulation model. The type of science that essentially relies on mimicry and human judgment seems not to be typical of the scientific method as we know it. Simulation does not rely on repeated experiments. It simply takes for granted its model has all the necessary ingredients by which accurate forecast of future climatological changes can be predicted.
Models can and most likely will be biased by the biases of their constructors. Which is where politics can sneak in....
Well, my two cents, for what it's worth, dearest sister in Christ!
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!
Any mathematical model is going to be inherently limited by our understanding of the objects and forces we're modeling. The model "is what it is". Objectivity is a human trait. I start questioning objectivity when the people who draw conclusions from the model refuse to acknowlege or consider the limitiations of the model, or the possibility that the assumptions it's based on may be wrong.