I think we have a different view on what research is capable of. I think such information already exists, but that it is up to the individual to make that inte

I think we have a different view on what research is capable of. I think such information already exists, but that it is up to the individual to make that interpretation. And it is fine to interpret things as you like. And it is fine for others to form their own interpretation. No one actually has 'the truth'. In a way what we are talking about is acknowledging what is called the 'Russell conjugation', where, imo, truth cannot be isolated from the emotional interpretation. An example is: > I am righteously indignant, you are annoyed, he is making a fuss over nothing. Of course, the fusspot 'he' in the example, could say the same in reverse! The personal bias/interpretation is always there. It's very hard (impossible) to see the truth of a thing without the emotional interpretation. I'm saying this is fine, it's simply a constraint of reality. If one is aware that one's own opinion is just one opinion amongst many (perhaps based in better reasoning than the next person's), make your case. But that no one has 'the truth' - all one can have is a well-reasoned interpretation (or not)... So no one has the right to limit another's opinions, as no one has the truth - no individual, no organisation. Believing oneself to be right does not give one a right to inflict one's opinions on others, to be treated as fact. In fact, those with the most certainty about the rights and wrongs are almost certainly operating within a highly constrained set of information, and can often be shown to be making erroneous judgements (or acting in bad faith). https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotive_conjugation