I don't see how they can. Both sides claim to be asking these questions/applying these processes, do they not? Certainly when I apply those questions/processes to vaccination and fluoridation and statins, etc. I don't come up with autism, toxic water, and harmful side effects, like I'm supposed to.
For example, were you to give me a novel problem to consider (i.e. one I don't recall anyone weighing in on here) - let's say "is secondhand smoke harmful?" - the only way I can think of to guess at which answer represents "following the data" and which answer represents "PR scheming" is to look at which answer is supported by scientific consensus and pick the other one. It seems to me that "scientific consensus" = "following the data". So once it has been proposed that this is wrong, I'm left at a bit of a loss as to how these judgements are made otherwise, especially (as we so often find) when facing a field in which one lacks knowledge and experience. One can claim to do a better job of "following the data" than those people who seemingly are in the better position, with knowledge and experience, to do so. But I've never actually seen an example where this claim has turned out to be valid, so I'm a bit reluctant to embrace it.
Linda