But the test will not determine a theory right or wrong, as any scientist will attest. It will only tell us if the theory functions within the parameters of the experiment we devised to test it. Because that's all the experiment can ever test: relative function. Relative function. And relative function does not equate to objective truth. Which is the gigantic misconception that a great many modern humans have fallen into.
There would only be true, if you only confine and rely on experiments in the lab, alone.
Ideally you would seek evidence inside the lab (eg experiments) and outside of lab (seeking evidence and answers out in the fields), where scientist don’t have much control of what they may find.
If you do both (independently of each other), then you would cover more ground, in finding objective answer to reality.
You are forgetting that testing in Scientific Method isn’t just about finding evidence that validate a model (eg hypothesis or current theory), it is also about seeking evidence that will REFUTE model.
That what objective testings about, allowing the evidence to refute or verify the model, by the statistical number of evidence FOR or AGAINST the model.
I would agree with you to scientist being “biased”, if he or she only accept evidence that agree with his or her formulate model, because he or she wouldn’t be doing science.
Real objective TESTING in Scientific Method - is relying on empirical OBSERVATION and EVIDENCE that will either validate or invalidate the model, and not on scientist’s preference for his model.
These observations, evidence and data relied in testing determine what model is probable or improbable, giving the objective needed to select the best probable and possible model.
And good scientific theory is one that are being continuously tested, even after it has been accepted.
Example, the theory of Evolution, first began in the mid-19th century with both Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace formulating their own evolutionary framework or mechanism - Natural Selection - not only through their works universities and museums, but also through evidence observe during extensive fieldwork, eg Darwin in South America, Galapagos, and the Pacific, Wallace in the Amazon and the Malay Archipelago.
The research and testing didn’t stop with Darwin’s On Origin, Descent of Man and other works, but other biologists managed to combine Evolution with the genetics of Gregor Mendel during the early 20th century. Other framework of mechanisms in the 20th century, eg Mutations, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking would expand the theory, with testing for each ones, with new techniques to test, eg DNA, the genome project.
Not only new species were found, extinct species have been discovered. Evolution expanded beyond Darwin’s rudimentary hypothesis, evidence and testings allow for correction and updates.
That’s what good scientific theories are, they are continually expanded, corrected, modified and tested, on the basis of observable and verifiable evidence and data, by as many scientists contributing to the theories.
They have done with medicine, astronomy, gravitation (eg Newtonian, Relativity), EM, Quantum Theory, Particle Physics, etc.
It is called progress. You don’t rely on single evidence or single discovery, but on multiple evidence which could change any one of these fields of studies.
Religions and philosophies on the other hand, often failed because they are unwilling to objectively test what they believe or assume.
It is why I think metaphysics is outdated and overrated philosophy in the 21st century. I am not denying metaphysics have some merits in the past and present, but it doesn’t provide the necessary objectiveness found in Methodological Naturalism.
