Evidence

Science continually refines what is meant by evidence. The epistemology is forever getting tuned up.
Other specialties -- theology, law, English ... -- also have their epistemology. How frequently are their epistemologies retuned?
In a word, does a court system, or a classroom for literature, have an epistemology anywhere nearly in tune as a science lab?

I bring this up to point out that kleptocracies maintain themselves by picking and choosing among established epistemologies, knowing that the specialists appealed to for that part of the argument will find the references reasonable: and at no point will the judge allow a team of scientists to come in and make mincemeat of the whole.
It’s exactly like the magician inviting the audience to inspect the prop, but only that part of the prop that isn’t rigged; or is rigged precisely to meet their approval.

This is how we cheat: by one hand not knowing what the other is doing. And if the scientists want to keep receiving their grants, they’ll know when to speak and when to keep mum.