> Look at how much "trust me, I've got training, I know what's good, I know what's already right" is in their argument.
I mean, isn't that what we're supposed to do in science? Listen to the folks who have the expertise? Like sure, don't believe that they have the expertise or whatever, but ask for proof of the expertise, don't just handwave it away because you don't agree with the expert. Nothing that they've said has appeared to be inconsistent with their claim of expertise, however.
So... maybe trust the person with the experience? Or, if you have a contrasting experience, present that instead. But this is not what you're doing.
> What is their actual point? That we can say across the board that good research must have easy-to-control experimentation and guarantee novelty?
My read is something like this: Their point is that the scientific method (aka "science") is fundamentally about rigor. If some science doesn't have rigor, it's fair to question its quality, because without rigor, you can't trust any of the results. There's too much possibility for error. The social sciences are notorious for lacking rigor. It's part of the reason there's a repeatability crisis in the field.
> My point is that their stance is political too, because it says 'I don't care about this like how they care about this, so I think it should get cut'.
That's really not what they're saying at all. You keep trying to spin it that way, but I haven't seen that indication of that particular intent.
> Their position is not some innocent defense of empiricism, it's a political stance that says "these questions don't matter, I already know how the world works."
No! They're not saying "these questions don't matter", they're saying "the people doing the science to 'answer these questions' are doing it badly, because they know what good science looks like, and that ain't it."