Isn't science supposed to go into matters totally unbiased and looking for what would come out of the exploration?
Well, scientists do construct a preliminary working project of a theory, they don't just plunge into the unknown. Surely they'd be more than happy to be proven wrong and to have themselves swayed into a brand new direction by observation. Like the LHC project - they do expect/hope to find a particle which is responsible for giving mass to energy but they're open to the possibility that it simply doesn't exist and they could be wrong on all this. In fact the guys at CERN say that they'd be much more excited if no Higgs boson comes out of particle collisions, than if they had actually found the Higgs. It would mean that there's a whole new horizon opening in front of them and they need to go into another direction. Often not finding something is more fascinating than finding what you were expecting to find.
So yes, they do have expectations and they base their theories on them, but those expectations/predictions don't come out of thin air, they're based on a long and unstopping string of prior discoveries and often theoretical/mathematical calculations that could not be proven at the time they're being made. Einstein also made a bunch of predictions based on his mindworks and a few mathematical calculations. Only later was it possible to actually test them and prove them or disprove them. In fact Einstein had his own doubts about a number of his own theories - for example he claimed he didn't like the idea of a dynamic universe so he added the Cosmological constant to his equations in order to make them work. Later, when the observations pointed to a dynamic universe as opposed to a static one, he regretted inventing the Cosmological constant. He called it his biggest error. But yet some time later, it turns out that the mysterious Dark energy or whatever is driving the universe apart somehow strangely corresponds to his Cosmological constant. So in a way Einstein was vindicated.
no subject
Well, scientists do construct a preliminary working project of a theory, they don't just plunge into the unknown. Surely they'd be more than happy to be proven wrong and to have themselves swayed into a brand new direction by observation. Like the LHC project - they do expect/hope to find a particle which is responsible for giving mass to energy but they're open to the possibility that it simply doesn't exist and they could be wrong on all this. In fact the guys at CERN say that they'd be much more excited if no Higgs boson comes out of particle collisions, than if they had actually found the Higgs. It would mean that there's a whole new horizon opening in front of them and they need to go into another direction. Often not finding something is more fascinating than finding what you were expecting to find.
So yes, they do have expectations and they base their theories on them, but those expectations/predictions don't come out of thin air, they're based on a long and unstopping string of prior discoveries and often theoretical/mathematical calculations that could not be proven at the time they're being made. Einstein also made a bunch of predictions based on his mindworks and a few mathematical calculations. Only later was it possible to actually test them and prove them or disprove them. In fact Einstein had his own doubts about a number of his own theories - for example he claimed he didn't like the idea of a dynamic universe so he added the Cosmological constant to his equations in order to make them work. Later, when the observations pointed to a dynamic universe as opposed to a static one, he regretted inventing the Cosmological constant. He called it his biggest error. But yet some time later, it turns out that the mysterious Dark energy or whatever is driving the universe apart somehow strangely corresponds to his Cosmological constant. So in a way Einstein was vindicated.