If it’s unachievable, why strive for it? Why not alter our understanding of the way we do science to accommodate for the reality of inquiry?
The knowledge we have already agreed on is unchanging and fixed […]
Here, I disagree. We are constantly revising, modifying, and undermining ourselves. This, I take it, is the strong-point of the scientific practice: it can admit of its own mistakes and so constantly overcome them, and itself; it need never be static.
At any point in time it may not be possible to determine which of two equally effective theories is correct. None the less, we want to know which one is correct. Work progresses with this goal in mind.
However, that we want to know which one is correct does not mean that one need be correct. This is her point. Of course, we want to know as much as we can, yet the realization that we don’t know it all doesn’t render what we do know irrelevant.
It’s easy to dismiss data which does not conform to your values as experimental error. This is a major reason to eliminate bias - so that you collect real data.
Here, again, is where our understandings diverge. I hold that bias cannot be eliminated. I understand you to hold the same position: you’ve claimed more than once now that the tyranny of ontological science is an unattainable ideal. Why, then, do you continue to insist on upholding its tenants?