Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Every scrap of data, news item, information, etc. is processed through dozens of subjective filters, such as the experimenter's brain, his or her mind, culture, through his words when he publishes the information, through the minds and interpretations of those who read it, through the journalist who rephrases it for public consumption, through the news agency that decides how they want to see the piece represented, through the mind and culture of the layman reading the piece, through their choice of words and omissions of details as they inform a friend about it, so on and so forth.

This is what's known as Standpoint Theory. People are just not capable of pure objectivity. Perhaps it exists in the physical world, but once it passes through us it is/can be skewed in some way. Have you ever had an argument with someone about whether or not an item is blue, or more purple? Bias starts in the very makeup of the organs that detect the world in front of us; our eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and definitely our brain.

The way we are approaching this conversation is from a limited, eurocentric approach. There are more factors in science to be concerned with than the pure experiment on the far end of the information. Details of science are constantly in a state of flux, of argument, and science (like anything) cannot be "proven": by their very natures, hypotheses and theories are suggestions about the world's workings that can only be supported by evidence, not "proven".

You should always question what is given to you as "fact", because your facts are always filtered through a myriad of biases, including your own biases to see them in a particular light.