What you fail to understand is that there are typically many scientists working in any given area. A bias on the part of one will be offset by a competing bias on the part of another. A rush to conclusions by one will be pointed out and chided by another studying the same or a related area. By this interaction, by resolving disagreements by *testing*, and looking at *all* sides of an issue, science progresses.<quoted text>I promise you this is true, you have failed to apply any alleged thing about logic you may have read in a book. The error in your statement is first in your devious attempts to apply a persona to science. Science does not make conclusions, so you are either dumb or lying, humans make conclusions based on personal biases. Like you, no matter how many science degrees you obtain, your objective will be to prove there is no God. You therefore enter and leave as a bias human who misinterprets what he sees and calls it science. I suggest that you look up the two words, science and scientist, and first learn that they are not the same.
As pointed out, science can not prove a thing, it can only disprove a drawn conclusion. It is obvious that many scientists are like you, and if you found evidence of a god particle then you would apply your own bias to lead your self away from it.
Scientists always encounter many crossroads, like a maze. Most scientists are bias and they try to map and manipulate the outcome. Imagine the gay scientists who discovers that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Is he inclined to document this finding? You say what? Well, if you doubt this, the APA for over 40 years has been discarded all science evidence and studies that do not fit the gay political correctness. As I said before this came straight from the mouth of Dr. Nicholas Cummings, the former APA president.
If a racist white scientists discovered that white people were mutant chimeras, an inherently a flaw in the gene pool, do you think that he would publish this finding? Of course not. He would manipulate it so to serve his bias. Case in point, Hitler used science to try to promote his racial bigotry idea of a supreme master race.
So, if a white racist scientists does not publish the result, a scientist of another racial background will. The problem, of course, is the politicians and businesses that pay for the scientists to give desired results rather than the truth. Instead of objectively considering the ideas and evidence, they require tobacco to be healthy, global warming to be a myth, and evolution to be false. Otherwise the funds are cut off.