Part 2:

"It's not like they're taking some special medicine that makes them immune to the same biases that everyone else has."

Well...again...they kind of are.

This "special medicine" is called mathematics, statistics, peer analysis (not just journal peer review) and the larger community.

Individual bias affects us all. I've written articles about that ad nauseum. But, collectivism is what tempers this individual bias.

It's also important to mention that, "bias" is not a dirty word, or a moral failing. It is the human condition.

The difference between trained scientists and (most) enthusiasts is; part of scientific training is how to alleviate your bias - using the above tools and collectivism.

More to the point; individual bias is immaterial. Because individual opinion is immaterial. It doesn't matter if Dr. Jekyl published his incredibly biased paper based on <whatever motivation.> Because if his data, and data interpretation is lacking - and can't convince a large fraction of his peers - the conclusions are pretty much ignored.

And this is good!

And, while I see your solid distrust of the "scientific community." I have to point out, while collective bias may certainly play a role in science, there is perhaps an even more powerful drive to dissect and cut-apart bad science.

There is - for better or worse - an prestige-feeding machine in science where, if you can legitimately point out the mistakes of another peer ... you "get prestige points."

I would deign to say your personal bias against "scientific authority" is leading you to draw conclusions I would almost guarantee you wouldn't make - if you had spent significant time working professionally in science.