What Scientific methods of inquiry might tell us is whether knowing the bear's way of perceiving, sensing, and behaving might reduce the risk or at least tell us to avoid certain situations if we are able to do so. In a crude analogy, it is like how we humans choose to live with pit bulls. Although maligned it is accurate to state that scientific research with dogs shows pit bulls have a lower threshold of what constitutes danger to the domain, dramatically more strength and jaw power than many dogs, and a tendency to not let go. Yet many humans choose to live with them even with infants knowing that one slip may be serious wounds or fatal ones. We have learned scientifically to understand dogs to a certain extent that allows for creating a balanced, calm, submissive animals that may not attack us if we are seen by them as the leader of a pack or dominant over them.
However, dogs and not wolves and trying to adapt these methods is perilous with certain pit bulls, let alone wolves. If we follow this line of logic, grizzly bears do not have 10,000 years of human selection to make them sensitive to human cues.
They have enormous strength, how they see the world and makes choices about it is a matter of current and necessary further research. Suffice it to say, we are lower on the food chain when in their territory, and if we do not know how they see a given moment and we do something which triggers or does not dissuade, the bear's ways of seeing things may result in our last moment on earth alive.
As you say, it is possible that even after further research we may find that their behavior is random, or at least so complex as to not reduce risk and dangerousness to a level that choosing to simply not invade their territory is the choice or not. However, it is too soon to know if this is true or that we have yet to understand them sufficiently.
As noted scientist Stephen Jay Gould once said:
"Perhaps randomness is not merely an adequate description for complex causes that we cannot specify. Perhaps the world really works this way, and many events are uncaused in any conventional sense of the word. Perhaps our gut feeling that it cannot be so reflects only our hopes and prejudices, our desperate striving to make sense of a complex and confusing world, and not the ways of nature. The world is full of signals that we don't perceive. Tiny creatures live in a different world of unfamiliar forces. Many animals of our scale greatly exceed our range of perception for sensations familiar to us. […] What an imperceptive lot we are."
David all I am saying here is thee is a need to innovate, imagine, and create inspired research on the grizzly to discover more about them. We may find them unpredictable or so complex they might as well be unpredictable. Or we may find dramatic and important answers to traveling in their presence. For the moment though lets remember that much needs to be done. Until then, like being a pit bull person, one rolls the dice and decides if it is worth dying for.
Yes science can be misused as can any method. As Gould also said: "Orthodoxy can be as stubborn in science as in religion. I do not know how to shake it except by vigorous imagination that inspires unconventional work and contains within itself an elevated potential for inspired error. As the great Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto wrote: “Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself.” Not to mention a man namedThomas Henry Huxley who, when not in the throes of grief or the wars of parson hunting, argued that “irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.”