Good science is good. Poorly designed science is bad.

[LostOne4Ever]

38. Okay lets go over this

The practice of science is subject to confirmation bias.

Nearly everything done by humans is subject to confirmation bias. The scientific method does its best to minimize this. This is why the vast majority of experiments include a null hypothesis which is also tested. Thus the cherry picking is minimized. Peer review and reproducibility further minimize this problem.

If you are wanting the word of god himself, then you are barking up the wrong tree. Science is done by humans and subject to human error, equipment error, etc... This is why we often include calculation on possible error. This combined with the scientific method means that science is self correcting and about the most reliable method of obtaining knowledge known to man.

Science funded by corporations or others with a vested interest in the results must be examined especially carefully. (And even then, you might not be getting the full picture. For example, some corporations make paid scientific consultants sign secrecy agreements. The results only get released if the corporation chooses to release them.)

This is why there is this thing called peer review and reproducibility...

Science decoupled from morality leads to things like the atomic bomb. And even to global warming.

Science is a tool. How one uses it is up to the individual. You wouldn't say driving decoupled morality from driving leads to things like car wrecks would you? Or Decoupling morality from screwdrivers leads to bombs?

As for the article, science does not need to look to the humanities. The humanities are just as filled if not more filled with confirmation bias as any science.

Despite the popular belief that anything goes in literary criticism, the field has real standards of scholarly validity.

So does science. Only its roots go back to the scientific revolution as opposed to the 1960's...

Mr. Goodstein’s point was that the textbook “scientific method” of dispassionately testing a hypothesis is not how science really works.

Actually, yes it is.