Would an adversarial research process be a step closer to finding the absolute truth?

The review of literature is found at the top of any positivistic
hierarchy of evidence used in evidence based medicine. Reading lots of
papers, aggregating results and then presenting a conclusion. That's
sort of what literature reviews are all about.

The problem - or one of them - is the problem of human bias. The history
of psychiatric research is like the history of human bias and
pseudoscience used to subjugate people. Bias is the bane of good science.

One method to avoid bias might be to use bias. Let's say person A thinks
the hypothesis is right. Let's say person B thinks it's wrong. (Person
could be replaced by research team.) Both have access to the same set of
information and both read it all. Both have access to the other teams
notes. Each presents their findings as they might in a standard review
of literature. A research judge - one I am assuming is unbiased - then
reads both and makes a decision on the question.

This is applying the adversarial approach from the legal system to
research. To insure the innocent are not wrongfully punished the
prosecution and defence present the most biased argument they can make
then the judge/jury makes a decision on guilt or innocence. They take
extreme positions and try any tactic to win their side of the case.
(This is in theory I think and all I know of legal theory is chatting to
a couple of friends of mine. I'm sure in practice the legal system isn't
so harsh because the innocent shouldn't have to suffer their life being
probed and prodded, their small mistakes being aired and turned into
ways for either the prosecution or the defence to win their argument.)

In an ideal situation both sides are equally skilled and able. Their
purpose is not balance. Their goal is to prove their bias right. In an
ideal situation the research judge/jury would be unbiased.

There are lots of flaws in this idea but I wonder if there are less
flaws than the current practices in research. The pursuit of science, in
my simple definition, is the pursuit of the absolute truth. Every
generation of scientists advances progress incrementally towards an
absolute truth. Sometimes it make be two steps forward, one step back.

What I mean about the pursuit of the absolute truth could be like the
history of the number pi. Another would be the position of the planets.
The Greeks and Romans might have been able to guesstimate where a planet
might be based on where it had been before. Someone like Copernicus or
Galileo or Newton would have brought this predictability to a higher
degree. By Einstein's time the predictability was really high - loads of
decimal places of accuracy but still not perfect. Along comes Hawkins
and his ilk with more progress towards the absolute truth and even more
refinements. The accuracy of their predictions using the formulas they
come up with means the position of planets is even more accurate (and of
course the resolution of recording instruments also had to improve).

Thousands of years seeking an absolute truth and perhaps we're still not
quite there.

Of course the question of where a planet is or is going to be is a
relatively easy one for scientific methods to be applied to. The human
condition. Now there's a fucking challenge!

Given the prevalence of psychiatric bias and pseudoscience this
adversarial research process might be a significant step forward. I'm
not sure though. The problem is people might believe in it too much.
Maybe a third research person or team is required. I don't know what
they would do or how they would fit in but...well....perhaps they'd be
tasked with....no.....still don't know the point of a third team.
Perhaps the third team would be creative or out of the box thinkers. The
crazy ones.