“An attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies”. This is a quote from Thomas Kuhn, on the objectivity of science. Science, to a certain extent, is indeed not successful in discovering reliable knowledge of nature.
There are a few keywords which require definitions to set the benchmark for this question. Rigorous method would refer to continuous assessment and attempt to falsify present scientific logics. As for reliable, all theories which have yet been falsified, and do not fall under the category of pseudo science will be reliable.
As such, I do not agree that science is successful because it employs a rigorous method of discovering reliable knowledge of nature.
A striking feature of doing research is that the aim is to discover what is known in advance. This is crucial in understanding the fact that science itself does not aim at discovering the unknown, but rather proving what is known. A simple analogy of science is that of scientific research is similar to that of solving a puzzle. The final result of the research is already predicted way before research is being done. What is going to happen would be issue such as the 1919 Eddington’s eclipse experiment to test out whether Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s theory of General Relativity stands. What actually happened was Eddington believed in Einstein’s theory and wanted to prove that it was true, and therefore he subconsciously minimized his errors in order to get the right result. Here, we can see how science does not actually progress when results are predicted before researches are done. It actually leads to scientists editing results of experiments to prove theories which they support either intentionally or subconsciously. With research results being edited so frivolously, how can we still expect research...