We place a lot of emphases here on calibrating individual levels of confidence (i.e., subjective probabilities), and on the idea that rational individuals will tend to converge toward agreement about the proper level of confidence in any particular idea as they update upon available evidence.

No individual has time to look at all evidence, therefore it makes sense when different individuals look at different evidence. In any question where all evidence is integrated into the running model it might be best to run new experiments that produce new data.

It's not like all data confirms our ideas. The number of open question in science seems to grow rather then decrease. It makes sense to focus attention in areas where we don't understand what's going on.