The big unaddressed issue is that conclusions based on empirical data can only be as good as the observations. If the data is biased, manipulated, "massaged", e

The big unaddressed issue is that conclusions based on empirical data can only be as good as the observations. If the data is biased, manipulated, "massaged", etc, there can be no good output from that poisoned tree, and other persons cannot contradict the results without attempting to replicate the entire research process beginning to end. With math, physics, applied math, computer science, etc, bad results can be usually (but not always) deconstructed by anyone with the merest tools of the rational; formal logic, application of various categorical laws, etc. Science as a process is useful, but its conclusions can only be as reliable as what its body of producers are incentivized to produce.