Yup. There is no way to resolve it. Everything besides numbers can be used to argue against them, because all numbers (optimistically) can measure is a very pre

Yup. There is no way to resolve it. Everything besides numbers can be used to argue against them, because all numbers (optimistically) can measure is a very precise and pedantic simplification of an carefully constructed argument. In the case of hard sciences and engineering, it's direct sensory data that feeds the argument and maintains the rigor. Every person's eyes more or less, function the same, lest we descend into philosophizing about language, continuity of meaning and perception. Science will eventually have to come to terms with realizing that interpretation and truth is much more variant than the ideals of science reach for. A lot of social sciences have accepted this, and even teach this. But the expectation is people should then be more intelligent, hard working, and overall have greater competency than the norm demands. Unfortunately this is what creates part of the problem - the ability to bring a pattern into actual existence, by observing it before it actually exists. I don't like the idea of survival of the fittest in research and ideas though. I think it starts with simple questions, like 'what are we looking to prove/demonstrate/etc?', 'why/how?', which is concurrently processed with stuff like ethical and moral introspection and discussion. But the big point of science half the time is that no one knows what they are doing. The prestige and authority surrounding academia doesn't really place as much emphasis on this as it should.