anecdote, if you will.. in a major University setting, for natural sciences, a mixed-level study-group is listening to a presentation on a model of a forested ecosystem using remote sensing and "AI", though the emphasis was on ML with certain inputs. An American with a liberal-arts background and good CS training, asks "in this model, how can we find the limits of the validity of these assumptions. A real world is more complex than what is being modeled, so how can we describe that and find 'blind-spots' in the work here" .. Meanwhile, a serious student who may have been born in China, asks "how can the model results be cross-checked to eliminate human bias in the result interpretation?"

Now this same exchange could have happened between any two students with the basic alignments of "objective science" versus "natural sciences", but it did seem telling of a certain pure-science tilt on the part of the student from China. To push that further, one could say that the "objective science" angle lacked a certain "intellectual humility" in the inquiry, with an emphasis on the correctness of the machine results, and an assumption that better math will produce "winning" output. No real evidence, but that was an impression at that moment.