I think this can be healthy. Being wrong is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you don't stop there. Science is an iterative process: questioning your metho

I think this can be healthy. Being wrong is not necessarily a bad thing as long as you don't stop there. Science is an iterative process: questioning your methodology-- especially with unexpected results-- and then going back to tweak things or double-check, I think that's a healthy way to approach a problem. So it takes longer to hone in on an accurate result. That's okay when it means we get a result with more confidence. Speed is nice, but it's not the goal, and a certain amount of skepticism (call it confirmation bias if you want) can serve the real goal if it is used a ls a tool to spur further investigation.