We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
1 Boring Old Man has been devoting himself to uncovering the Pharma-Psychiatric research cabal, but nobody is really listening. My rule of thumb is to take everything I read with a a few grains of salt.
In some fields they understand this and have fairly high standards for proof. Like correcting for the "look elsewhere effect" and demanding 5 sigma for a discovery claim. And spending as much time estimating the uncertainty in a measurement as they spent making the measurement.
I think there are a couple of other reasons as well. Of course there is the biased researchers who consciously choose to find/create results that support their beliefs and ignore results which do not. Then there is the problem of putting time and effort into a research project which yields no results so good or bad, right or wrong every research project must have "results" worth publishing. If they didn't do this grant money would dry up. And another reason is statistics lends itself to "lying" or confusion. One researcher's "statistically significant" result is another researcher's noise or outlier. For a lot of reasons statistics appeals to dishonest and power hungry people.