"Science" is a methodology that tries to address our human penchant for fooling ourselves. Feinman said it best “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool”.

That's the point of the null hypothesis, double blinding, repeatability. (I see power and statistics more as a way to determine the likelihood that the results - which are from a sample - map to the population the sample is drawn from).

So, as to your question (do scientists determine results in advance?) it's not supposed to work that way, but it's entirely possible that it does. Scientists are human - and one thing that could keep them a bit closer to that "try to prove you're wrong" (i.e. the null hypothesis) is more publication of replication results - which is sadly lacking. Personally, I think that lack is coming from a mix of pressure on researchers to publish something new, plus those publications not wanting to publish replicative work.

Not a scientist, nor a philosopher, just someone who's thought about this a bit...

BTW, that linked article is behind a paywall. It's impossible to discuss it without, you know, reading it. Pointing this out as that paywall might be invisible to you (one of my concerns when I put a link on Medium - I use a different browser I've never signed in with to test.)