I explained how science works because the original post says that "strongly divergent opinions" is, in and of itself, probable evidence that the matter is "divisive but inconsequential." This proposition can only follow from an unscientific epistemology and worldview where anecdotal polls of opinion alone can be taken as the decisive factor in deciding whether a factual proposition is likely to be consequential or not.
Objective metrics are, by definition, those without subjectivity involved. Naturally there can be disputes over the details, or mistakes made, and through an iterative process errors are identified and corrected, moving arbitrarily close to the objective truth of the situation. Over time, this remedies the problem of individual mistakes and subjectivity being involved in the process.
At this stage, hundreds of studies have been done, so we are well along that path and any remaining errors in the thesis are likely to be minor and non-material.
If this is not true, everyone is welcome to come up with an experiment to falsify them all.
