It's not really subjective. Strength of the fields inside collider's sensors is very precisely known. So when shower of particles flies into that precisely known field, field bends particle trajectories in a very specific way, that is predicted from equations in QM and electrodynamics. If, say Higg's boson, has certain predicted energy, it's trajectory will curve in a predictable way within some range and that trajectory-curvature would be unique only to Higg's boson. No other particle could do that. But scientist are human, many theories are incomplete, and scientists can get territorial. That's why experiments are done. Oh please, just one more. Give me just one prediction that psychology made that wasn't already accepted as a common sense by all practical people (excluding idealists and book warms). I mean something that was unimaginable and earth shattering like radio waves, or transistor, or aeroplane. I absolutely have no problem with people getting paid to do jobs they love, if they can get away with it, as I am sure many psychologists do. But, I have a big problem with psychology adding more confusion in already confused subject of ufology. Suffice to say, ufology is in a desperate need of earning public trust. Only a deterministic science, like old school classic physics and maths, can offer us some solid ground to step on and show us a way out of the mess that thousands of UFO witnesses testimonials inadvertently created.