I understand what you are saying.
Epistemiology is where the statisticians come in. In the words of Deborah Mayo, we learn about the world by being shrewd inquisitors of error. Scientists are by no means a monolithic group that uses the same techniques for all questions. Methodology changes dynamically, is shared, revised, updated, improved, and discarded. And the power, in this case, lies with the individual mind that does science and not with an epistemiologist who directs how science should be done. As far as "preventing personal preferences from shaping outcomes", that's a matter of intellectual honesty. And physicists are just as dishonest as biologists. Peers, when they can spare time from their own dishonest research try to keep the rest of us honest, and with time, corroboration of findings will pick out the weak and wrong results. But even that is not always sound.
Wow! What a dismal state of affairs!
Please take a look at my tag line....
Thanks for writing, Nebullis.