The Shibboleths of Modern "Science"

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” but who decides what is “extraordinary”, and more importantly, how? “Burden of proof lies with the claimant.” Why is not the “burden of proof” on anyone who is interested in truth? Furthermore, why would it be called a “burden” in the first place? That seems biased to me. “Peer review is the gold standard of science,” but how does “peer review” differ from expert opinion, which is hardly considered a form of evidence? “Converging evidence strengthens conclusions,” but only if the “converging evidence” does not share the same bias. “Large sample sizes reveal truth”, but this assumes that quantity compensates for conceptual error. “The data speaks for itself,” is not even a grammatically correct statement. A datum cannot “speak” for itself as it has no meaning without definition. “The plural of anecdote is not data.” Yet, without anecdotes, there would be no phenomena to formalize. Most discoveries start with anecdotal observation. “Regression to the mean”, is a common statistical observation, of which uncritical repetition introduces bias against that which is considered “extraordinary”. “Fail to reject the null” ≠ “accept the null”. In other words, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” is generally correct. The exception is when the evidence itself is supposed to be clear and transparent, as in the case of purported scientific standards. If one cannot find them, then that is evidence they do not exist. “Science is self-correcting.” That would be true if the standards were clear and consistent. “The studies may be useful later,” but what about the null hypothesis? What if most studies will never be useful? That idea is only possible with implicit assumptions: incentives will eventually change communication will be reformed distortions will be corrected the conditions of misrepresentation will not persist “Standing on the shoulders of giants”, is perhaps the most common shibboleth of modern “science”, while the basis of science is critical and therefore independent thinking. What is the difference between: “standing on the shoulders of giants” and appeal to authority fallacy? Ockham’s Razor, known as “do not multiply entities beyond necessity”, sometimes referred to more simply as parsimony, introduces bias toward simplicity. “You cannot derive an ought-statement from an is-statement,” yet this is itself presented as a universal principle, without justification. “No one would want to be a true scientist if they understood what it takes.” Well, I want and always wanted to be a true scientist while being fully aware what that means, so that idea is hereby disproven. “Science is just a method,” or “science does not provide meaning”. Is it so? Does science not require at least the objective of truth? Without the objective of truth, what is science? How is truth not meaning?