When science proves something is true using the scientific method, it means it is just TRUE. You can not go "well I have faith in the scientist in the sense that he told this is true and I will believe him" - that is something a religious person do - , the other people are not suposed to believe in the scientist words but in the objectivity of the scientific method and the evidence.
And that objectivity is not there. Instead it is a consensus of 'best method around' not an objective proof. Find that proof and provide it here or wherever you desire.
The evidence surely is not objective, nor do I think you mean that. The interpretation of the evidence may be considered objective, though as I've noted, that proof is not found. And is more in vein of consensus that evidence is very similar in quite similar situations.
Fact is, it is faith in particular science types and scientists that occurs. If 'psuedo scientist' followed same methods (same exact methods) and came to conclusion, that conclusion would be, I believe highly scrutinized, likely downplayed, not because of methodology, but because of person's bias(es) and credentials. Which is whole other aspect of this discussion. We think science is the sort of thing (like religious hierarchies) that benefits from credentials, to the point where no credentials means, "pay no attention to those people." I often wonder why the reality isn't we are all to be considered scientists unless there is something more going on that amounts to faith. The assumption ought to be everyone is a scientist, unless there is sufficient reason to doubt their overall credibility. Not just one strike and you're out, but more like varying degrees and that some persons may be more like, "hey he/she has 95 strikes against them, but since we are all scientists, it ought to be considered. Perhaps it will lead to strike 96, or may be one of the rare instances where he/she brought results that are met with consensus." The point being here, except for ridiculously extreme cases such as that, why not assume everyone/anyone can do this methodology and likely does some or much of the time, with different phenomenon, different scopes? I think in theory, proponents of science would support this, but in practical world we live in and in history of science, it shows up often as, only select few are (real) scientists.
Which is another one of those things I'm 99% sure scientific method cannot back up. What makes for scientist and how would methodology go about providing evidence for that?
