Are scientists always objective?

When scientists perform an experiment or do some sort of scientific exploration, they always have an already formed hypothesis in the back of their mind, which inevitably influences the process of forming a conclusion. Thereby, complete objectivity in science is not possible.
1 supporter.

Science is evidence based process.

We can rephrase the statement as "Science is a process partially based on evidence."
1 fallacy report.
Fallacy Of Red Herring

Science is evidence based process.

A scientific claim is one that is supported by data/evidence/relevant observations. Just because people believe that Moses parted the red sea, that does not make it a scientific claim, even though the process of parting a sea is hypothetically related to the refute of gravity.

Science is evidence based process.

Is science really a process, or a construction of different processes?
1 fallacy report.
Fallacy Of Red Herring

Science is evidence based process.

"Moses parted the red sea" can't be regarded as a scientific claim, can it?

Science is evidence based process.

That is true, because in order to make a scientific conclusion one evidence is most often not enough. For example, when we're collecting samples, one sample is not enough to show the content and structure of the object we are examining.

Science is evidence based process.

This is not the only aspect that science is based on. In order to gather evidence, you first need a theory, observations, and a hypothesis. Evidence is only one of the components that make up science.
2 supporter.