Certainly not. Most scientists start with a hypothesis they are trying to validate.
In relation to theories about origins scientists are quite open about their bias. According to evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin in the quote below presents the view typical of many if not most evolutionists:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its contructs, in spite of its faulire to fulfil many of its extravagent promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialsm is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door"
(Richard Lewontin, ''Billions and billions of demons'' , The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p.31.)
Thus, in this area there is a philosophical bias towards any materialistic explanation, regardless of where the evidence leads.
Evolutionary Paleontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer, who made a sensational series of discoveries of Dinosaur soft tissue in the 1990's had trouble getting her research published due to bias. Schweitzer stated that: "I had one reviewer tell me he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible....I wrote back and said "Well, what data would convince you?" And he said "None." (Discover 27 (4): 37-41,77, April 2006.)
unbiased
A fair test is important so you can get accurate and unbiased results.
faith you believe things always believe science is truth and experiments chose faith over science!
Science operates by observing the natural world in an unbiased manner, by logical reasoning and mathematical analysis of those observations, by making and testing hypotheses, by sharing knowledge, by experimentation, by constantly working to verify existing results to see if anything new can be learned, and by building on existing knowledge.
Researchers are rarely unbiased in their pursuit of science, striving to "prove" their ideas correct leads to improved methods and better science. Unequivocal or unambiguous empirical data often serves to settle debates regarding conflicting and competing hypotheses. The best theories produce the most accurate data and lead to the best predictions.
unbiased
So their opinion doesn't interfere with science or the truth. Science cannot answer anything that deals with beliefs
A fair test is important so you can get accurate and unbiased results.
"Neutral" and "unbiased" can be synonyms, but "neutral" also has other meanings, particularly in science. Probably the closest synonym to "unbiased" would be "disinterested", except that some people persist in using this a a synonym for "uninterested".
Only if you make it unbiased. Samples can be weird. If you make it unbiased, then yes.
science and technology is not always perfect
It is always difficult to find a completely unbiased report on a genocide due to the emotiveness of the subject. However, some good places to try are the Washington Post and New York Times websites.
It is to ensure that what you have concluded is correct and unbiased. If your peers disagree with what you have concluded, it is either because you are incorrect or because you made a biased decision.
It's not always. Take a look at Ufology, it's riddled with bad science. But it still exists.
science project tools
Neutral and nonpartisan are synonyms for unbiased.
The newspaper was unbiased because it presented both sides of the story.