I was going to post a comment that may or may not be along the same lines as what you're getting at. My impression, after working in the biomedical field, in c

I was going to post a comment that may or may not be along the same lines as what you're getting at. My impression, after working in the biomedical field, in clinical settings as well as in research settings, is that a lot of what happens is arrogant hubris, in part related to identification with the physical sciences in a biomedical context. I'm not saying those in the physical sciences are arrogant, what I mean is that there is a certain arrogance that people afforded to themselves by virtue of their privilege and monopoly, and it justifies itself along the lines of "I'm an expert in the physical sciences, which means that whatever reasoning I employ to justify something is sound, because it is based in what I perceive to be sound biological, chemical, physical theory." I guess what I mean is that, although I agree with you that most of what is published is nonsense, to put it politely, the problems start much earlier, in conflating "science" with "physical objects of study." Often they don't even get to the stage of systematically collecting data, because they don't see reason to question the truth of their hypotheses. It sounds reasonable, because they are smart, therefore it must be correct. When you get to the stage of shoddy data supporting these biases, it makes things even worse. It's survivorship bias at its worst. People assume that because they get into medical school, or in some cases, grad school in the biomedical sciences, that they got there because they're geniuses (rather than because of who they know, luck, etc.), and that means they're somehow above the need to empirically verify their hypotheses. People just don't understand that there are lots of good ideas that are just wrong.