Even by itself, the first statement might not be the case. I don't remember the book that well, but I remember thinking it was a good introduction to this topic. Philosophy of Science: A Very Brief Introduction by Samir Okasha.

Ideally, absolutely. That’s what makes the hallmarks of a great scientist.

In practice, institutionalized science can be just as dogmatic and closed-minded as some of the worst religions.

I have had advisors/coworkers/management straight up ignore certain evidence because it didn’t fit their preconceived views of what the results “should be”. This doesn’t make the process of science objective anymore when people are crafting experiments in ways to fit their views, or cherry picking data that conforms to their views.

And you would be surprised at how often this happens in very high-stakes science industries (people’s lives are at stake). It’s fucking disgusting, and extremely dangerous.

Do you or have you ever worked in science? I did for a bit and that was not my impression.

One cannot really argue that science as practiced is very effective at certain things but it is also extremely far from being objective in practice. Especially the further you stray from simple physical systems.

Also like I never saw someone formulate a hypothesis in any sort of formal sense haha.