Science cannot be corrected from inside; it requires external accountability, which is true for all major corruptions. Scientists who get significantly critical get shoved out, as shown dramatically with global warming criticism.
In the past, it was only retired scientists who dared get critical and it was only physics that was so corrupt that it drew criticism. The focus was primarily on relativity, being the most extreme corruption in physics.
An example was a group of physicists headed by Alan Pendleton who produced a paper publication called Aperion. They moved onto the internet along with everyone else during the late nineties and then they disappeared along with everyone else who tried to produce significant criticism on the internet.
I got into science criticism by stumbling onto science errors during the eighties. By then, I was already outside the science power structure due to mental pain. This situation gave me the freedom do produce science criticism unencumbered by intimidation.
Knowledge builds upon knowledge. In many cases, knowledge never gets past the starting point. When it does, it characteristically gets far more complex than ignorant persons assume it should. Since science is very complex, its corruption is far more extreme and complex than assumed.
Complex things always lead to more complex things. It's like going over a hill in the mountains and finding the next hill to be even bigger. The hill bigger than science errors is irrationality in society. Rationality is breaking down in society resulting in superstition replacing science. Modern superstitions are every bit as absurd as ancient ones, which includes global warming, renewable energy, electric vehicles, self-driving vehicles and travel to other planets. There is not enough energy in hydrogen and oxygen to be going anywhere through space travel.
Why is Al Gore teaching science in the schools through a movie which is about the equivalent of a travel advertisement? He has never studied an iota of science in his life. Society has a strange relationship to science, at least since it is no longer a science educated society. It's the assumption that any amount of dribbling around in the subject produces superior knowledge. People don't make that assumption about politics or medicine.
Producing serious criticism is not totally circumstantial. Some persons do; some don't. However, being involved in a power structure prevents serious criticism. To some extent, social structures must promote positivism to get things done by focusing on tasks. This need places all the more demand upon persons who are outside the social structures to do the criticizing. Journalists are supposed to do that, among others.
Politicians cannot produce criticism and fixing on a social scale. Too many persons expect politicians and government to solve their problems. Government cannot solve social problems beyond its own. The purpose of government is to make life possible for others to solve problems. It's a facilitating purpose. Social problems are too large and complex to be solved by government.
Problem solving tools are independent of politics and values. Rationality is the means which humans are supposed to use for advancing their purposes. It's based on objective reality. People have a right to expect objective reality in the social, public domain. Subjectivity and values are supposed to be left in the private domain. They can be taken up as objective realities when concerns develop, but doing that separates them from the objective requirements for getting things done.
One of the main problems is that a lot of persons do not develop objective reality to a suitable level for the purposes that they have in promoting causes. Without objective reality in their heads, they revert to subjectivity including ad hominem attacks to promote their causes. Destroying scientists for criticizing global warming fakery is the clearest example. (See "Firing Scientists" in the global warming section of this web site.)
One of the problems with global warming is that it reduced to a political issue with liberals and conservatives on opposite sides. Fifteen years ago, it was not a political issue and about half of the scientists were saying it doesn't exist. Now, they don't dare speak out.
With conservatives opposing global warming, there is no science being developed on the subject. Conservatives will not get into the science, because they do not want to admit there is corruption in power structures. They promote power mongering.
Superficiality characterizes global warming, as true of all corruptions. Thousands of scientific papers are published on something that doesn't exist. That's skimming awful lightly over the subject.
It's hard to imagine what nonscientists mean when they say they can look out the window and see global warming. Why don't they look out the window in the wintertime? It's an insult to science to reduce the subject to such stupidity. It indicates a rejection of science as accountable measurement of objective reality. It's a result of a force developing in society attempting to replace rationality based on objective reality with subjective whim to promote causes.
There is a break-point between reading about science and producing science. The essence of the difference is in realizing the limitations and demands of science. The first thing graduate students in science learn is that you can't prove that water is wet. In other words, opinions are worthless. It's only measurements that science consists of. What measurements mean depends upon how they were acquired.
Therefore, the evaluation process is totally different on the other side of that break-point. It includes a realization that there is infinity which is not accounted for. The corollary is that the readers about science don't see the infinity. They assume they can get science right by having Joe Dokes tell them what the truth is.
Humans have a responsibility to be correct, while blaming someone else for being wrong is not justifiable. Recognizing that responsibility allows corrections to be made. Persons who shed that responsibility cannot be told. It doesn't mean the general public should not delve into science. It means they need to make sure they know what they are talking about, which might mean very little dogmatism in their promotion of causes.
The defiance is shown when scientists say hurricanes are not caused by global warming. The promoters of global warming defy the scientists and say otherwise. The mentality is that since scientists agree that global warming is destroying life, anything that promotes the cause is justifiable whether factual or not. A lie becomes a virtue when promoting a noble cause.
It's a rationality problem driven by the motive of mongering power. Incompetents need falsehoods for prevailing. So they contrive fakery as a source of power. Objective reality is not just in the way, it defines corruption through counter-reality which is needed by incompetents.
In science, fake reality is contrived by incompetents, because it is "nonfalsifiable". Separation from objective reality removes logic from the subject. Relativity is used for no other purpose having no relationship to anything else in physics. Millions of lines of math equations are written on relativity without error, because they is no such thing as error in contrived reality.