> Science and psychology, for example, are not political.

Science is extremely political. Ask any PI who's written a grant or published a paper before whether they think science is apolitical.

>Science and psychology, for example, are not political.

Could you clarify? Do you mean to say that these fields of study don't yield results that have political implications? Or that these fields are impervious to political influence because...well I don't know, they aren't performed by humans?

I mean they aren't political by definition. They exist at a lower layer and are apolitical by default. They can be used or corrupted by politics - and are.

But people do science. We bring our bias, limited vision, and our politics and opinions.

Which is why there is the scientific method. Good science is reproducible and provable regardless of what your opinion is.

Facts are facts regardless.

'Facts' bend to the funding available. Money (can) drive conclusions. Interpretation is a matter of prior experience and available terminology. Even our hallowed logic stands on unprovable axioms.

That and there is an incredible shortage of reproductions and garbage publications that are difficult or impossible to replicate with the available information.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170411104516.h...

These point to soft sciences, so I suppose my point doesn't stand so much for things like climate change publications, or evolutionary biology.