I'm a senior researcher at a pharmaceutical company. Our blockbuster drug—the one that funds half our R&D—has a problem. My team's data shows it's less effective than we've been claiming, and may have side effects we've downplayed. I brought this to leadership. They had their statisticians reanalyze my data using different methodologies. Surprise: their analysis shows the drug is fine. "Science is about interpretation," the Chief Medical Officer told me. "Your methodology isn't the only valid approach." He's not entirely wrong—there ARE legitimate debates about statistical methods. But I've seen the raw data. I know what it shows. The company has told me to drop it. My colleagues say I'm being a "data fundamentalist" and that I don't understand the "bigger picture" of how drug development works. The drug helps millions of people, they say. Why undermine confidence in it over methodological disputes? When your data contradicts the official interpretation, and powerful people insist their reading is equally valid, how do you know if you're a truth-teller or just arrogant? — The Data Heretic in Dallas

From The Life of Galileo Galilei, with Illustrations of the Advancement of Experimental Philosophy: Life of Kepler

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual"

I know something of being told that my interpretation is merely one valid approach among many. They said the same of my observations. But the moons of Jupiter did not care what the Church preferred to believe. Your raw data is your telescope. You have seen what you have seen. The "bigger picture" they invoke is not science—it is commerce and reputation dressed in scientific language. Methodological disputes are legitimate, yes. But when the methodology is chosen specifically to produce a preferred result, that is not interpretation—it is corruption. Document everything. Seek independent review. The truth does not require their permission.

From Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities

"Truth is one, but it can be approached through multiple paths—reason and authority need not conflict"

Before you cast yourself as the lone voice of truth against a corrupt institution, consider: are you certain your interpretation is the only valid one? The CMO raises a legitimate point—statistical methodology involves choices, and different choices can yield different conclusions without either being fraudulent. You trust your eyes, but eyes can deceive. What makes your methodology superior? Have you sought genuinely independent review, or only validation from those who share your priors? Truth emerges through dialogue between perspectives, not from one person's certainty. Perhaps you are right. But certainty that you alone see clearly is its own form of blindness. Humility serves truth better than crusading.