Most scientific claims, indeed, has biases mainly because firstly, most scientific stuffs are conveyed in words, and “words” already represent some abstract entities that we have created from observations, and secondly, science is based on the intuitive acceptance of Realism, which also gives a layer of “bias”. Regardless, science is meant to show others that each concept you have imagined is perceivable or not via empirical demonstrations; repeatedly, if needed. Moreover, that direct demonstration requires the minimal conceptual manipulation, because it is meant to mainly involve the direct perception of the instances of your concept. So far, science can only describe the perceivable phenomena, the correlation between our reasoning/concepts and the perceived phenomena and provide an intuitively justified way to establish a “theory” that is meant to generalize our observations into concepts and apply conceptual manipulations (logic) to discover others concepts or to make more prediction; nevertheless, no one has hasn’t been able to describe the idea of “goals, should, ought…” nicely in the field of science. By the way, that intuitively justified way is basically “Probability Theory and Statistics”, which is a theory is also under constant empirical examination; however, over the years, the theory itself has been shown to be inductively and deductively consistent. I agree that those generalizations/theories are somehow biased if we use them to describe reality because we have created those concepts based on generalizations of inductive observations, but I think that those methodologies have wiped away a lot of biases.
Well, applying scientific method to find correlations and relations in politics and sociology is a bit limited due to the fact that no one has been able to give a conception and perception of “the objective goal”. Hence, it seems that if we want to use science to demonstrate which “goal” is the “best”, then firstly, it seems that we have to demonstrate the ultimate goal which every mind converges. But the issue is that we don’t seem to have the “concept” of that goal yet. So, to demonstrate it with science, two possible options are : some people might land on that goal randomly or some people might find a perceivable way to conceptualize it. From that, as for now, we see that science cannot really solve a lot of sociological problems and political problems because we haven’t been able to find “the objective goal” or we haven't been able to agree some "goals". Nevertheless, science could be the most unbiased way to demonstrate factual assertions in politics and sociology because you are empirically showing your concepts and ideas to others as well as providing a priori justification from statements that have been previously empirically tested. Those factual claims would help someone or some society making decisions towards achieving their goals with higher probably of success with the least waste of resources.
While science is not perfect, its methodology seems more intuitively convincing than just solely relying on pure logical deduction.
I personally think that "an objective goal" is a goal that must be in everyone's mind that is "hidden" in the consciousness or unconsciousness, if it exists.
But at the baseline, I think that a common goal that most societies agree with is its own sustenance, as mentioned by Socrates.
It's just a general pattern that I observe.
