[Guv

You seem to object ot any subjective decisons
Yes when allocating funding I would prefer to base my decision primarily on external facts in an attempt to increase the probability that the research is successful.

Consider the following, which I consider reasonable.

Suppose you have authority to allocate research funds. A well dressed person who seems bright shows you credentials indicating that he has degrees from MIT in astrophysics, mathematics, and chemistry. He shows you a 50 page proposal titled "Planets in Andomeda Galaxy made of various kinds of cheese."
Heh heh. This is a joke right you don't honestly consider this example plausible do you?

I would check the calendar to see if it was April 1 and laugh heartily with them.

Would you read his proposal? Would you try to verify his MIT credentials? If his credentials could be verified, would you consider his proposal more valid than if his credentials were phoney?
The person's credential would make a difference. If the person lacked credentials I would politely ask him/her to leave.

If on the other hand he/she turned out to be a well-regarded genius in astrophysics with countless accepted theories to his/her credit, then I wouldn't dismiss the proposal as quickly. In this case I would at least turn over to read the synopsis. Perhaps this is evidence of a sense of humor, and a valuable new theory was just waiting for me to look past the front cover?

If you read his proposal and it claims that observational evidence based on astral projection exists, would you allocate funds? Would you do any further objective analysis of this proposal?
Assuming the person's credentials are supported and I have ascertained they are serious about the theory, based on the fact that no rational scientist would put forward astral projection as scientific evidence, I would be thinking that perhaps this genius has slipped quietly into complete madness. Before going any further I would request a full psychiatric evaluation.

Thanks for livening up the debate Guv!