[cornelis]

Thanks for the link.

This same debate takes place in logic, epistemology or law. The debate is similar for the reasons 1/1,000,000th% gives: "To have a process that requires evidence and objective evaluation"

The process is nothing more than the systemic arrangement of a set number of objects with a set number of methodologies. Whether it is one field or another, this style or mode will always have the character of limiting its field. The limitations imposed are a mode or style of thinking that is historically contingent. Whether this limiting feature should be called objectivity should be debated. Objectivity is also political concept.

[Nebullis]

The concern with methodology in philosophy of science are beside the point if one steps larger afield and questions the assumption that anything of truth or value can be obtained by science at all. Of course there's a historical context, and the direction science took hundreds of years ago, may not be justified. Philosophers, theologians, and other real human beings may ponder this a fair bit, but I don't think one can assume that if the scientific assumptions are put on their head that the established methodologies will lead to a different truth. The methodologies simply become irrelevant.