The penalty will be reality, but I believe science really progresses on the gut instincts of scientists. Imagine you're presented with the data of an experimen

The penalty will be reality, but I believe science really progresses on the gut instincts of scientists. Imagine you're presented with the data of an experiment, you can either publish the data resonably objectivly "the mean is 5" or you can hypothesise a cause and invent a new experiment to test it. There's no scientific method for how this hypothesis comes to you. That's a result of your lived experience. So your stance is absolutely essential to the form and direction of research, even if wrong then the experiments performed can give valuable data for people with more or less different stances. This situation appears to be an expression of what Micheal Wheeler called the Heideggarian philosophy-science nexus. Which is explained in a single paragraph on the page I see when I go to this link. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UKsf3Zziar8C&lpg=PA166&ots=jUWAZ5TtFw&dq=heidegger's%20philosophy%20science%20nexus&pg=PA166#v=onepage&q=heidegger's%20philosophy%20science%20nexus&f=false https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UKsf3Zziar8C&lpg=PA166&o...