dmouse: I suppose my 'target' if you want to call it that, is pseudo-science, non-science, misused science, misapplied science, distorted science etc.
I believe your analogy does show up one very interesting aspect of scientific investigation. In analysis of results, it is entirely dependent on the interpretive perspective of the researcher. If they choose to ignore the import of certain facts and raise to the level of relevance facts which do not actually correlate to the subject under consideration at all, resultant conclusions can change.
These conclusions can be "confirmed" as accurate by anyone who repeats the "experiment" or recreates the research from within the same "model" although there may be no reason to credit the model as valid beyond consensus (which is NOT science).
However much we try, we cannot eliminate the subjective from the scientific process. Its presence is intrinsic to human existence. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as "objective reality." It is a figment of the imagination, and ideal that has never been achieved. To some degree or other, ALL science is distorted. Which is why, no matter which way we look, we keep finding there is more to find out about. Although we might see certain aspects of reality, reality also exists outside the bounds of our ability to perceive (as opposed to "conceptualize" or "envision"), automatically rendering the perception we have distorted.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul