You and Art are going back and forth about the role of "bias"
in experimental science, and I think you are talking about
two different things. You appear to be thinking of bias as an
illegitimate influence which would stack the deck in favor of
one of (perhaps) several hypotheses proposed to explain an
observation. On the other hand, as I understand it, Art is referring
to the phenomenon that philosophers of science since Thomas Kuhn
delight in pointing out; namely, that "all data is theory-laden"
(or some similar phrasing). In other words, even the observed
data depend to some extent on the presuppositions of the investigator.
It is these presuppositions which (I think) Art is referring to as
"bias".
Steve Clark pointed out in an earlier post that many practicing
scientists are rather poor philosophers of science. Kevin, are
you familar with modern philosophy of science and its implications
about the role of investigator presuppositions ("bias") in the
scientific endeavor? Your posts seem to be claiming that these things
simply don't influence your work in the lab. Are you sure?
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University
Valparaiso, IN 46383