How can we become completely impartial to scientific experiments?

Question

All the time there are motives, even if they go unnoticed, in science. Whether it be pride, money, or stubbornness there is always something to distract scientists from giving a 100% unbiased analysis.
-What can we do to keep this from happening?
-Will science ALWAYS be affected in someway by human error like this?
-What do YOU think will happen if we continue to be motivated by the idea of conforming?
(Scientists conform alot because, like religion, disbelief in anything that is 'universally accepted' as fact is comparable to heresy)

Answer 1

Partiality in science is not always a bad thing. Besides the petty motives discussed above, many scientists are moved by the beauty or elegance of a particular scientific theory, or just by the feeling that it is right. Experiments are usually performed to prove a theory - that is the scientist starts with a hypothesis and tests that hypothesis. A real scientist will consider the data that shows the theory is wrong along with data that might support the theory.

This is the basic culture of science. It is reinforced by peer review. Any experiment must be explained in such a way that it can be replicated and examined by other scientists. If the experiment is indeed verified, then it is regarded by all as correct, and all theories regarding the experiment must conform with the results of the experiment.

Many experiments are difficult to perform and interpret. It may take a scientist many years of working on an experiment, only to find that his original expectations were wrong. The best motivation for him to perform this kind of experiment is a hope and belief that the theory he starts with is correct. This being said, he must accept failure, if nature so dictates.

Answer 2

Continuous diligence and discipline. A healthy peer-review system. Freedom of speech. We can't prevent it, as long as scientists are people. Perhaps when computers can do science ... By nature, scientists are less motivated by conformity than others. There are pressures, especially when disagreeing with your boss can cost you your job. Most scientists are aware that a breakthrough is likely to result from nonconformity rather than conformity. Does conformity or funding bias some scientists toward proving global warming? Do some scientists believe life came about by random chance, not because the evidence justifies it, but because any alternative might imply a God to whom they are accountable? It's really hard to do science when you've already decided the outcome.

Answer 3

king_esam123

Answer 4

that's a extensive physique of information. i won't be able to truly inform you one ingredient that proves evolution is real on the grounds which you may in simple terms say "yet what if..." and then i could could counter your argument with yet another piece of information. to bypass in direction of the main products of information without delay: while we learn DNA of organisms, we are in a position to ascertain distant places DNA from historic retroviruses latest in the genome of animals, surpassed down by means of generations. while we see (as an occasion) a retrovirus latest in all people besides as all chimpanzees, we are in a position to assume that the retrovirus contaminated an organism that grew to become into an ancestor of all people and all chimpanzees. additionally, fossil information. however people say we've not got many transitional fossils (i.e., fossils representing animals in an middleman degree between 2 considerable communities, there is one rather impressing actuality with regard to the fossil record. Evolutionary scientist J. B. S. Haldane mentioned that if paleontologists have been to locate "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" (i.e., fossils of modern-day species dated to be from many tens of millions or billions of years in the past), it could promptly harm his perception in the thought of evolution. This has under no circumstances got here approximately. If evolution does not take place, we might assume to ascertain modern species interspersed with historic species in the fossil record, yet we basically see modern species very presently in the fossil record, and previous a definite element, no fossils of modern-day species are considered. And right here is one extra tremendously exciting piece of information: chimpanzees and people have a different form of chromosomes (people have 23 guy or woman chromosomes, different apes have 24). while this grew to become into chanced on, it regarded like a large flaw in the thought of evolution. Species as comparable as chimpanzees and people could no longer probable have the sort of extensive distinction as an entire lacking chromosome. Then it grew to become into chanced on that between the human chromosomes is same to 2 of the chromosomes of alternative apes, merged jointly. while you're drawn to extra of this, you may study Dawkins's "perfect teach on the earth," a e book with regard to the information for evolution.

Answer 5

I'm impartial with experiments when I don't know what it is I'm actually meant to be doing... my solution is simple: get inexperienced people to conduct and write up experiments.