It feels weird to think that science can be unbiased!

Science is based on people pursuing topics by asking questions.
It becomes so clear to me that the way each one asks a question is deeply rooted in how they feel in life at the moment of asking it.

I personally have changed my latest manuscript’s approach and insights many times — and each time, it was because I was changing in real life.
Those changes made me ask and approach topics differently, and so my perspective changed accordingly.

Even now, with everything I am learning while working on this blog, I can already see things I would change again in that same manuscript!

I am also supervising students.
One thing I am eager to do in supervision is to understand my students’ way of thinking more than their actual skills in implementing ideas.
I believe that if I get to see their logic in action, I can understand them better, and guide them toward what aligns with their own goals and current quests in life.

But witnessing a human being doing research under my direct supervision was so revealing in highlighting this paradigm:
People pursue topics based on who they are.

I clash with my students many times — not because either of us is wrong, but simply because we are approaching the topic differently.
Each of us is at a certain neurological activity and stage in life.
And this shows up so clearly when we talk and tackle a problem together.
It eventually shapes how the research itself turns out.

And while I will eventually assert dominance and take the drive, I am painfully aware that I have merely asserted my view of life — not a truth.
When I agree with a student or another researcher, it is because we are aligned in our views. And when we disagree, it is simply because we are clashing.

If I work only with those who agree with me, I am merely magnifying my worldview.
If I work with those who clash with me, and we manage to find a compromise, then we are creating a new worldview.

And neither view — my innate one nor the new baby — is superior to the other.
They are just… different views.

Now, I want to extend this line of thought further to every researcher who is the main person behind their work.
The person shows up in their work very clearly, in my opinion.
Every piece of research — in the way it’s written, laid out, and approached — tells me a lot about the person who wrote it.

And here lies the trap:
The way the person shows themselves is the way science gets shaped.

Not by facts and objectivity (whatever these two words mean), but by pure human biases.
When one reads a research paper, one thinks it is an objective piece of research — supposedly conducted according to the scientific method, with personal bias theoretically minimized.

But in my opinion, this human bias, highlighted by compulsive self-expression, will never disappear.
And while one might think they are reading a piece of science, I truly believe it’s a simple piece of self-expression.

Some people find their ways of self-expression in art, music, spirituality, etc.
And some find it in science.

Science is showing up more clearly to me as a self-expression platform —
no matter what assumptions have been implanted in our consciousness.