Where we disagree is that you’re trying to exclude everything you don’t like (fallacy of exclusion), where there are examples even in the hard sciences where there have been abuses, and you use a method/process to argue that the results are true, while in reality, even there you have examples of where science went wrong.
Back to the point. As society becomes secular, nihilist, hedonist and amoral, expect science to prove what the greedy, angry, selfish, hypersexual masses want. The childless couple is responsible because of their low carbon footprint, abortion is actually good for that child because the mother would have been unable to support the child, homosexuality is actually natural, homosexuals make great parents (the topic of this thread), humans weren’t meant to be monogamous, HIV/AIDS is a disease everyone can get… Want to bet that you’ll see science prove that pot isn’t so bad after all, once it becomes more main stream and legal? Science is often a tool that is used for affirming ideas, people, or things. Once the money starts flowing, science will miraculously determine all sorts of benefits and how minuscule the health risks of pot really are- it’s happening today. The more the public is dumbed down, the more savage the average person becomes, expect only more of this affirmation and junk science.
Science has budgets; those that work in science have ideologies, personalities, cultural biases. The people that run it have kingdoms that need preserved, are politically influenced, and have egos. Most science is there to make money, may that be for a school, corporation, or whatever, and it serves an economic function. There are interests at work that go beyond a mere altruistic desire for knowledge.
There is a methodology/process. Yet, global warming, DDT, the ozone hole, coming ice age, acid rain, paper recycling, glass recycling (enviro junk science). Theories regards human sexuality, homosexuality, crime, intelligence, gender roles (the social sciences) are all contaminated and constantly changing because they are trash/junk science. The hard/natural sciences are contaminated as well, just to a lesser extent. Just consider how for years science was used to disprove the danger of lead in fuel. You had researchers, led by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._Kehoe stating for years how a little lead doesn’t really affect us that much. Let's go more recent, the “White Coat Project” by Philip Morris, and the “Sound Science” project, by the tobacco industry in large, which used science to create doubt about the dangers of side stream smoke: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050238 Now let's get to current ideas. Did you know that your free will is merely random background noise in your brain? http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=10953 So much for free will.
In many cases, this isn’t deliberate misuse of science, and those that are in error are coming to their conclusions using the best science (methodology) available in their time. Unless one thinks Rutherford and Bohr where hacks, they came to their conclusions following a sound methodology and reasoning, but you often don’t know, what you don’t know, and their theories have been superseded.
Science does not live in a vacuum, and the methodology does not guarantee the truth, just as the titles of researchers or some institute, are often used as an appeal to authority or red herring. I'm not saying that all scientists are charlatans, or that it’s all a waste of time, but much of it is, because it is influenced by the culture and economics- much is basically no more than a sales pitch, not much unlike the person in the white lab coat talking about some new diet pill in a commercial. The IPCC, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC, all have agenda’s and are influenced by forces outside of some scientific methodology/process (the high school textbook answer). You can’t even expect non-profit government agencies with the public trust in mind, to be objective.
Maybe I'm just too cynical.
Actually, what I do is measure against an ideal standard of absolute objectivity, and speaking out against so-called studies that are far from reaching that standard. I have been doing this for years. When studies are based in sound scientific principles and methodology, I say so. And when they are not, I criticize them. In this manner, I have commented on thousands of articles posted on FR and elsewhere. My own personal likes have nothing to do with this. The fact is that some disciplines are far more robust than others: a biochemistry experiment set up with the proper controls to address every possible outcome and enough replicates to show statistical significance is far more reliable than a study that surveys people about their eating habits over the last 20 years and then makes some conclusion (not supported by the evidence) about how eating X leads to heart disease.
Back to the point. As society becomes secular, nihilist, hedonist and amoral, expect science to prove what the greedy, angry, selfish, hypersexual masses want. The childless couple is responsible because of their low carbon footprint, abortion is actually good for that child because the mother would have been unable to support the child, homosexuality is actually natural, homosexuals make great parents (the topic of this thread), humans weren’t meant to be monogamous, HIV/AIDS is a disease everyone can get… Want to bet that you’ll see science prove that pot isn’t so bad after all, once it becomes more main stream and legal? Science is often a tool that is used for affirming ideas, people, or things. Once the money starts flowing, science will miraculously determine all sorts of benefits and how minuscule the health risks of pot really are- it’s happening today. The more the public is dumbed down, the more savage the average person becomes, expect only more of this affirmation and junk science.
Here, you are confounding opinions with science. There is no scientific study that establishes, for example, that a baby is better off being dismembered in the womb than living with an uncertain future. That isn't even a thing that science can answer--thus, any pronouncements by someone making such claims are their own attempt to quash their guilt over the indefensible act of killing an innocent child. Some of the other things you said may be claims made by sociologists but which are not backed by actual science. Sociologists tend to be radical leftists who want the world to be a certain way, and who do all kinds of "studies" designed to give results that support their pre-existing opinion. However, scientists often show completely different things. For instance, despite the numerous beliefs about the benefits of marijuana, recent research is showing that it is very harmful. The legalization attempts, ironically, are making this research possible when it was not possible before, and the results are not looking good.
Anyway, I don't have time to address everything in your post. Just keep in mind that sociology is not science; that there are charlatans in science just as there are elsewhere; that often the publicized studies are not the most scientifically robust studies, but fit the political agenda of the news organization; that the perception of science you might get when your only exposure to it is through the mainstream media is probably extremely skewed; and that the majority of studies that "prove" anthropogenic climate change do no such thing, but only mention it as a buzzword that increases the chance of funding in a highly competitive environment.