We broadly agree. Science is more than "being objective". My "test" vs "prove" business was about devising tests that you expect would be most informative, no

We broadly agree. Science is more than "being objective". My "test" vs "prove" business was about devising tests that you expect would be most informative, not just accepting the results. For instance, I could test if an apple really falls when I drop it. But I'm know it will, and I'm quite certain I will learn nothing from such a test. Therefore, I won't perform it in the first place. I reckon objectivity is a good start, though. Also, I did say that a biased journalist should not be allowed to conduct reviews. That indeed prove we don't live in an ideal world. Unless you made a deeper point, and asserted that such journalists actually should be able to operate precisely because of non-ideal aspects of our world?