I think it's a descriptive language issue, combined with the projection of judgement onto things that are like Jungian archetypes, but individually composed. I

I think it's a descriptive language issue, combined with the projection of judgement onto things that are like Jungian archetypes, but individually composed. I experience these things on accident because I suppress judgment of others, and then it comes out accidentally. It seems to be when someone wants to live totally scientifically and can't believe the language of other people, because they weren't there to make the recording or observation directly, therefore they can't asses the potential biases of every scientific conclusion fully. The logical form still fits because the theory is composed within the perspective of exactly one person. The theory of logic and the logic of theory are interesting. Science often paints one picture of the world, with the a priori assumption that that picture is correct and can be used to describe new evidence. The present evidence is established formally using the language of the past. Not everyone speaks this language. Many people venture down rabbit holes that are infinitely complex, in order to find 'the base' in which everything can be rested upon, in which their subjective view of the world intersects with the objective view of the world. And if they even can find that, then what base does the base rest upon? Many times while you are searching for it, trying to explain it, you change it. There are so many ways to interpret information mentally, coherently; that I don't feel like science has considered this as a influential component (or a component to at least consider seriously) when measuring error margins, biases, correctness, significance. People need to be educated in how maths and logics connect us mentally in a way that is unified and solid, but in another view, the world of information defines mathematics and logic, rather than math and logic supporting the base of objective measurement. But then again, I'm talking about individual people, rather than the idea of the scientific institution as a monolithic establishment. It's a choice selection of information combined with formalization. You can't know all information at once. Every theory is composed of a selected subset of information, assuming [the set] of information exists from which the subset is derived, and a subset of [the set] represents [the set] correctly.