In places like the artic and the ocean some scientists are now paying attention to the 'folklore' and observations of natives and local fishermen and such, who've tracked patterns over generations and sometimes have oral histories that are more accurate than some of the 'scientific observations' in terms of climate change and such. One only has to look at the ongoing debate by academics, writers, researchers, PB participants, etc. Yes one can use the scientific method to tease through various alternative explanations, however there are alternative explanations and science doesn't necessarily explain them all well or accurately as sometimes the wrong questions are asked or the right questions aren't posed. The NewYorker had a great article a few years ago about how the then widely accepted scientific dogma was that one's 'gut' was a completely sterile enviroment and that ulcers were purely the result of stress. Now I may have gotten some of the details a bit wrong but the general thrust is bang-on.
Biases exist in all realms.
We are all biased by our experiences and we all test out our own hypothesises in our own way. Some are just better and more thorough at doing so, sometimes using the scientific method, sometimes not. The 'truth' has many dimensions and the subjective is as valid as the so-called 'objective' oftentimes. In places like the artic and the ocean some scientists are now paying attention to the 'folklore' and observations of natives and local fishermen and such, who've tracked patterns over generations and sometimes have oral histories that are more accurate than some of the 'scientific observations' in terms of climate change and such. Yes one can use the scientific method to tease through various alternative explanations, however there are alternative explanations and science doesn't necessarily explain them all well or accurately as sometimes the wrong questions are asked or the right questions aren't posed.