There is an objective truth that imperfect humans try and many times fail to understand. Culture and belief can lead scientists to certain areas of inquiry at the expense of others, blind them to obvious problems with their data, and allow the supposed rigor of numbers to paint a patina of objectivity to the value-laden decisions in designing experiments. This is especially true when the ratio of unambiguous data to opinion is low, a condition that exists too often in the social sciences. Gould's argument also works in reverse. When a scientist, even one with his own perspective, challenges a conventional wisdom, he is more likely to be introspective and self-critical, knowing his results must endure severe challenges.
Sloppy science has less of a chance to uncritically slip by.
Defying orthodoxy results in either better science or quick embarrassment. Research that contests what others accept as axiomatic must meet a higher burden of proof. Challenging the Liberal gun control orthodoxy poses such an obstacle. There are many arguments for and against gun control, some of them constitutional and some of them empirical. Lott's book, the outgrowth of a paper published by the Journal of Legal Studies, falls into the latter category.