I am not anti-science. I was trained as an engineer and love science. However, over the years, I have had this gut feeling about something wrong with the philosophy of science, that make science vulnerable to corruption. I finally figured it out and would like to share my insight. The philosophy of science is designed with new science in mind. There are strict rules in terms of procedures and validation called the scientific method. I have no problem with this, since these rules help screen science in a consistent way. Where the loophole is, is connected to science criticism. There are no rules, like the scientific method, when it comes to science criticism. There no rule that says a criticism can't be irrational, political, philosophical, based on bias or just based on personality conflicts. The creator of new science has to remain logical and play by the rules, the science critic can free style. The lack of rules for the critic creates a loophole in the scientific method that can sway the results. What it allows subjective factors to stick its hand up this loophole (butt of science) and use science like a sock puppet. One modern example is political correctness. All science is good at the rational level. The subjective irrationality of PC, can stick it hand up the butt of science, via the loophole and use science as a sock puppet. The creators of science can't do science here or there. Over broader science where many studies come together for larger inference this can data stack the inference. Sock puppet science will need to sing the song the puppet master wants. Picture if the loophole was sealed, so there is no sock puppet science. This would require defining the scientific method for the valid science critic. But if irrationality is allowed and protected by the philosophy of science, it would appear science was making sock puppet provisions.