True or false: Are scientists influenced by their own opinions?

Of course we are. We're people. You spend 10 years working on something, you want it to be right - so it's often hard for a scientist to separate their science from what they think should be happening. That's why we have peer-review; people to help you figure that who aren't emotionally involved in your project.

Scientists don't like to think they are influenced by their own opinions, yet I bet on some level they are influenced.

There is no way to say true or false because there is no way to measure something like opinions.....there are no absoluts in opinions.

absolutely. Its almost unavoidable. However, the scientific community as well as the scientific process l has checks and balances that prevent science from going too far off the track.

One example of such a check is peer review. There comes a time when the scientist will have to present their findings before peers. Any problems that have not been worked out in the scientists research will be brought to the table (under glaring lights) at this stage.

some just by their own egotistical narcissism, I am the expert and your too stupid to see the real truth.

most it is money, no grant money, no easy job, no tenure, then have to get a manual labor job to make money. so they always agree with the people that holds the purse strings. if the money person says that "apples are bad" then the data will show that apples are bad for you. what ever will keep the money flowing.

other just go along with the others to keep their jobs. you disagree then your black listed and made a fool.

very few, do follow the "even a wrong answer, is a good answer" of real science.

so yes they are influenced not just by their own opinions but the people with the money, or a way to make their own money,

money is one, political power and pressure is another.

so when you hear of "a consensus of scientist agree or disagree" follow the money and the political power behind it for the truth.

Sure. It happens. But the great thing about science is that another scientist with different opinions is always going to come along and either verify your work or find what's wrong with it. At the end of the day the view with the most supporting data wins out. Science is always a group activity :)

Everyone is influenced by their own opinion. That is why Science set out to create methods of testing and experimenting that make mere opinion as ineffective as possible, while highlighting facts from observation as much as possible. It is called empirical evidence.

yea solid element, and that i'd not ideas in any respect if christians beleived what they did quietly, yet such countless of them look intetnt on proving each and all of us else incorrect, and discrimintaing adverse to gay human beings, or human beings of yet another releigeon. such countless are illiberal of others beleifs, and of atheism, even at the same time as there's a lot technological awareness to educate it. it truly is a disgrace, because there are a spread of stunning christians accessible, and via those illiberal ones, some warfare to imagine properly of them :( solid element in spite of the actuality that :)

All conclusions from experiments are subjective and as a result, no better than personal experience. Conclusions are skewed to confirm the opinion of the researcher. You can make the data seem to say anything you want just by the way it is stated.

True, scientist are influenced by their own opinions sure. But they also know their limitations - as pointed out, peer-review holds them in check.

Yes, of course. It would be unwise to assume that a scientist cannot be a victim of his/her personal experience and/or the product environmental factors.