Not to be rude, but this post just puts unwarranted faith in "science" and "experts".
For example, experts apparently collect evidence in "an unbiased, objective manner". What? Says who. Those "methods have to be available to other scientists for replication." Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author and two citations.
Frankly, there is no objective research, and fetishizing authority and "experts" (a group of people where, e.g., African Americans are underrepresented) is both harmful and dumb. There is a ton of literature on how science often does not follow it's systematic claims at all, check out Kuhn's work for an intro.
For example, experts apparently collect evidence in "an unbiased, objective manner". What? Says who. Those "methods have to be available to other scientists for replication." Seems like an odd thing for an article with no author and two citations.
Frankly, there is no objective research, and fetishizing authority and "experts" (a group of people where, e.g., African Americans are underrepresented) is both harmful and dumb. There is a ton of literature on how science often does not follow it's systematic claims at all, check out Kuhn's work for an intro.