Scientists are no more honest or dishonest than the general population.
Perhaps when it comes to telling a porkie about who took the last slice of cake or the size of their....last fishing catch, yes. But any scientist that 'lied' or was 'dishonest'in a published scientfic paper would not only risk his whole career & get found out pretty darn fast he would have to fabricate all the science on which his paper was based.
The expression 'to stand on the shoulders of giants'is not meaningless hyperbole.
All scientific work is not a bolt out of the blue. It is like layers of an onion. Each conslusion reached is only possible because of the solid, evidence based research previously undertaken by others . For the OP to be correct this would have to be similarly flawed by "dishonest scientists"to even make sense and so on all the way back to Newton until the whole ediface came tumbling down. That idea is simply absurd.
With regard to what I think you're referring to, the dating of archeological or fossil remains (as fink posted )in order to be as acurate as possible many methods of dating are used. Where these methods converge an acurate date can established.
Watchtower uses dated and skewed criticism of one particular method, the Carbon 14. This method has been further refined and in any case is rarely used on its own.
It always makes me chuckle that should a witness require a body to be dated in a murder investigation, or ancient remains ruled out as a homicide, witnesses'🗽🌃accept the word of scientists without murmer. Such work may even feature in one of their colourless little Awake articles.
The minute a Scientists' findings conflict with their bronze age, repeatedly redacted stories their work becomes worthless and their methodology questionable. This was the point I think Viviane was making previously.