I see the problem, you think saying "stating the fact" makes your opinion objectively true instead of subjectively bullshit. 🤣

Do you dispute that? Can you show me an instance where this is not the case? Can you argue meaningfully about something you have no clue about - to the extend you call it "random word salad"? Could I argue in Chinese with a Chinese guy without knowing the language and understand anything?

This is your opinion and the basis of your entire argument.

It's not my opinion, it's just that science doesn't use a single universal method. See here:

Darwin's delay in publishing his theory involved factors other than the stormy political climate. For what he was proposing marked a significant departure from conventional English empirical science. At the heart of natural philosophy in England, as we have seen earlier, was an emphasis on observation and experiment. Even though most scientists did not follow precisely the Baconian emphasis on the primary role of empirical observation, nevertheless, they recognized the crucial importance of experimental testing of particular hypotheses.

This requirement presented Darwin with a grave methodological problem, simply because he was proposing a theory in which direct observation and experiment were clearly impossible, at least in the sense that a biologist could confirm the hypothesis of natural selection by observing it in the action of significantly transforming one species into another. Obviously, the time spans involved and the often minute succession of variations by which one species developed out of a species with quite a different appearance (e.g., reptiles from fish) meant that no direct testing by observation and experiment was possible.

To meet this difficulty, Darwin developed a new scientific procedure, now known as the hypothetico-deductive method. He first developed a theory, relying upon analogy and deduction to organize a plausible explanation, without direct empirical evidence, and then applied that theory to a wide range of facts, to demonstrate the explanatory power of what he was proposing.

The fact they called this a theory and thus equivocated it to legitimate theory that are subject to observation and experimentation (as in hard sciences of physics and chemistry) is ridiculous and the greatest hoax there was. Darwin and his cronies basically redefined what scientific knowledge means so they were able to pass the mythological evo theory for actual science.

You can read the whole paper here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635141/