More on corrupt science:

1. People write in popular magazines instead of writing actual science. This way it prevents real experts of countering their claims.

2. Cherry pick an single event or single detail, and make it seem extremely important. Instead it should be taken with all other evidence.

3. Reverse faking: "If I can fake it, it must be fake". Usually omits some details which are harder to fake, or circumstances in which this fake is very unlikely. In the same line: It must be a hoax.

4. Not discussing/countering the Null-Hypothesis. "What if there was no ......?" Without a null-hypothesis, we are jumping to conclusions.

5. It was "researched". And after investigation actually no-one was responsible for the research. Or a single person. Everyone just assumed that a good research was made, or good science was performed.

6. Censorship of conflicting science. No science publication can pass the peer review, if it puts severe doubt on previous made conclusions.

7. Preferable conclusion. Either due to politics, finance, prejudice, or even because "it looks nice", the scientists come to conclusions without any real scientific evidence. A lot in theoretical physics was accepted, because it was mathematically beautiful.

8. Maths as evidence. Or a simulation as evidence. If you make a mathematical model, and the data fits the model. Does that make the model undeniably correct? No of course not. Even if it is very precise. It might just be correct just for this tested system and for certain circumstances. Sometimes a model has removed the influence of other factors (like noise), but due to the errors in the model, the test seems perfect. In a simulation this can even go further, because a simulation has even more simplifications and systematic errors. Maths or simulations should not be considered as evidence, without properly testing the alternatives and thoroughly investigating the limits of the model/simulation.