I respect all scholarly responses and agree with them in large part. However, I have to raise certain points:

1. Are most scientists really interested in searching for the truth when conducting experiments or validating what they believe to be true? My answer is no. Otherwise phenomenon of fake researches has not occurred. Most scientists are conformal and dare not deviate from so-called “normal science”. If one dares, either his research does not see light of the day and rubbished or scoffed at. Therefore, in Kuhn’s view normal science is dogma. Fake researches get published because of their conformity and one get rewards in the form of job contract or research funding. It is in this way that competitiveness of science interferes with this process, that is, in the production of research in a “publish or perish” culture in academia or research organisations. Those whose researches that may expose the incorrectness of concepts instilled by normal or mainstream stream science as these researches turn out in a cultural revolution against the wishes of the establishments or may cause harm to corporate who are profiting or amassing wealth on researches whose results sooner or later may be harmful for humanity in general, the researchers of this kind are silenced anyhow.

2. The scientific method outlines the steps in scientific inquiry where the meeting of reality and scientific vision occur at the level of the experiment, but anybody can claim that conventional scientific methods is hundred per cent foolproof. In my view it gives results which have been already anticipated as experiments, and data which are to be recorded and their interpretation all are theory-laden. As such, to expect novelty or discovery is to hope against hope.

3. This point is not a point but to share some views. First is a View and Counterview from:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-16/edit-page/37766845_1_higgs-boson-cern-scientists-elusive-god-particle

Discoveries depend on patience

Less than 800km from where a new pope has just taken office, a physicists' conference has been taking stock of the God particle. Its spokespersons have pronounced a 99.9% certainty that the new particle discovered in Cern's Large Hadron Collider last July is indeed the Higgs boson, or the key to how matter acquires mass. But whereas last year's pronouncement was greeted with great excitement even by laypersons, this year's has fomented a yawnfest. While this is par for the course when it comes to the relationship of high science to mass audiences, in no way does it impair the significance of Cern's work.

Because the funding of expensive projects like the LHC and Nasa's Mars rover can collapse without taxpayers' support these days, scientists try hard to seek a mass connect, in language attempting to bridge the gap between their ivory tower and the general economy. Complexities can get lost in the process, such as the fact that the LHC team has now analysed 2.5 times more data than was available in July, and the very reason the Higgs boson was dubbed the 'goddamn' particle (a sobriquet later sanitised) was because it is so hard to isolate.

Gazillions of apples had taken a fall before Isaac Newton came along to ask, why do apples fall? Gazillions of gravity experiments later, man stepped onto the moon. In all the years in the interim and beyond, applied probability has enabled applications in fields ranging from genetics to computer vision. Given that what we are really awaiting is a new law of physics, intended to be eternal and universal (till the next discovery) — the wait for confirming the Higgs boson hasn't really been that long. As Captain Kirk told the Triskelions, 'All your people must learn before you can reach for the stars.'

COUNTERVIEW

Meghna Roy

Scientists taking us for a ride

It's not for nothing that Nobel prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman once described the Higgs boson as the 'goddamn particle' — later changed by clever publishers to 'God particle'. That conferred on the scientists' quest an aura of deep mysticism and insight, even making it seem like a spiritual quest, when the reality is that modern science is so abstract and esoteric that it hardly offers anything meaningful in human terms.

Let's take the latest burst of excitement over the Cern scientists declaring to the world that they are now 99.9% certain that the Higgs boson they discovered is actually the elusive 'God particle'. Just a few months earlier, however, celebrations had broken out in the scientific world when they told us they had detected the same particle with 99% certainty. Mark that it's not still 100% foolproof. More research and insight, the Cern scientists say, will be needed into the findings to establish beyond any measure of doubt the existence of the Higgs boson. So what exactly are we celebrating? More uncertainty and confusion? Six months down the line, we may again hear from the Cern scientists about new discoveries about the Higgs boson that could change the entire debate. Funnily, like now, even then the public would be struggling to comprehend a fraction of the scientific terminology.

Scientists may even turn around and say that their research is not meant for easy comprehension by all and sundry. But then why treat each discovery as such a spectacle, even when we're not even very sure about what's being talked about? It's actually much ado about nothing, because scientists need large sums of money to fund their esoteric research. Therefore hype, as in clever coinages such as the 'God particle', is needed to con the taxpayer into paying for all the expensive equipment.

However, in my country most people including scientists have religious bent of mind, nevertheless bloggers theist or scientists in the West have no better opinion:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/higgs-boson-discovered

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24758-higgs-nobel-bash-i-was-at-the-party-of-the-universe.html#.Urr7Tc7GW-Y

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29071/higgs-boson-have-we-really-found-it

http://nypost.com/2012/07/08/higgs-boson-discovery-could-make-science-fiction-a-reality/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/06/higgs-boson-physics-hits-buffers-discovery

Is not discovery and confirmation of Higgs Boson is to justify zillions of funding and continuation of funding as well as Nobel Prize? I need not to agree with this view, but I do agree that current researches are reason of this scepticism?

current dogma of established science; yes it will not lead to discovery. But most scientist have there own core dogma.

What I am asking is do scientist when verifying hypothesis actually seek to get results that contradict what they believe to be true.

And how does this damage/help scientific pursuit?

Science has sense where we stay on the edge of current knowledge and are curious what is beyond. Properly build reliable experiment may not only confirm (or not) our current theories/hyposthesis (based usually on the best knowledge), but also rebuild/create new knowledge, point directions of further research (including: more detailed, more relevant), and even change attitudes of other scientists toward important scientific issue. We continuously search link among theories, results of experiments, and current practice (in my case: clinical practice), thus experiments never stay alone.

It like constructing of a building.You put bricks (the results of experiments) on each other to construct the building of science.When you test your theory in an expertiment,the results maybe in accordanance with your theory or not.I think if its in accordance or not,both of them are results that construct the science

I believe we should always dwell in the house of the questions. Of course, the experiments should lead , with intellectual honesty, to confirm, but also to refute our hypothesis. I believe , however, that there is a problem that is before.

I have the impression that in biology there are very few hypotheses and theories even less . In part this is due to the nature of biological science and the thousands of parameters involved than the physical-mathematical sciences . I think this is a big problem without adding that it is a good or a bad thing. From experimental research we has gone to the theories ( with the concept of falsification of Popper ), then progressive research programs ( Lakatos ) , then again the absence of method of Feyerabend .

These philosophers have anticipated or understood what was already happening. And now we are in the midst of how brilliantly shown by Woody Allen in " Whatever Works " , without you having any awareness of the cultural and scientific context and so on. in which we move. I glimpsed a hope in the new types of mathematics applied to biology (Chaitin) . I do not see anything mechanistic or reductionist in this new approach. I do not know if it will work and I'm afraid I do not have the resources of time, knowledges and many other shortcomings in order to follow this new research. I hope that some of you young people do it , and let us know.

@Maurizio, the problem with biological research is that scientist are under great pressure to publish works and get funding. So often, there exists a temptation to "coax" biological data to fit a particular hypothesis of a project. Many scientist want experiments to confirm what they believe. This is especially true with high impact works or being trying to get a faculty position or tenured.

This discussion has been three important issues and integrated. The relationship between them is complex to abstain in just a few words and opinions. The dependence between facts and factors involved is relatively large.

The first question I believe that scientists are not the only ones interested. Companies and entities financimento scientific studies together with scientists directing the way to select the research lines of interest. Civil society should also play a role. However, she should have enough to occupy their space and scientific knowledge have power to co- decision to the other pillars involved.

Competitiveness is important for the evolution of the search process. It is an encouragement for researchers since starting of scientific publications, exchanges of knowledge at conferences and scientific events and meetings within the single research group can fill the eyes and ears for stimuli required to perform the search process.

When scientists see different results than expected and it should dedobrar your attention and play in a sufficient number of times to justify the reliability of the data . This is important!

I respect all scholarly responses and agree with them in large part. However, I have to raise certain points:

1. Are most scientists really interested in searching for the truth when conducting experiments or validating what they believe to be true? My answer is no. Otherwise phenomenon of fake researches has not occurred. Most scientists are conformal and dare not deviate from so-called “normal science”. If one dares, either his research does not see light of the day and rubbished or scoffed at. Therefore, in Kuhn’s view normal science is dogma. Fake researches get published because of their conformity and one get rewards in the form of job contract or research funding. It is in this way that competitiveness of science interferes with this process, that is, in the production of research in a “publish or perish” culture in academia or research organisations. Those whose researches that may expose the incorrectness of concepts instilled by normal or mainstream stream science as these researches turn out in a cultural revolution against the wishes of the establishments or may cause harm to corporate who are profiting or amassing wealth on researches whose results sooner or later may be harmful for humanity in general, the researchers of this kind are silenced anyhow.

2. The scientific method outlines the steps in scientific inquiry where the meeting of reality and scientific vision occur at the level of the experiment, but anybody can claim that conventional scientific methods is hundred per cent foolproof. In my view it gives results which have been already anticipated as experiments, and data which are to be recorded and their interpretation all are theory-laden. As such, to expect novelty or discovery is to hope against hope.

3. This point is not a point but to share some views. First is a View and Counterview from:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-03-16/edit-page/37766845_1_higgs-boson-cern-scientists-elusive-god-particle

Discoveries depend on patience

Less than 800km from where a new pope has just taken office, a physicists' conference has been taking stock of the God particle. Its spokespersons have pronounced a 99.9% certainty that the new particle discovered in Cern's Large Hadron Collider last July is indeed the Higgs boson, or the key to how matter acquires mass. But whereas last year's pronouncement was greeted with great excitement even by laypersons, this year's has fomented a yawnfest. While this is par for the course when it comes to the relationship of high science to mass audiences, in no way does it impair the significance of Cern's work.

Because the funding of expensive projects like the LHC and Nasa's Mars rover can collapse without taxpayers' support these days, scientists try hard to seek a mass connect, in language attempting to bridge the gap between their ivory tower and the general economy. Complexities can get lost in the process, such as the fact that the LHC team has now analysed 2.5 times more data than was available in July, and the very reason the Higgs boson was dubbed the 'goddamn' particle (a sobriquet later sanitised) was because it is so hard to isolate.

Gazillions of apples had taken a fall before Isaac Newton came along to ask, why do apples fall? Gazillions of gravity experiments later, man stepped onto the moon. In all the years in the interim and beyond, applied probability has enabled applications in fields ranging from genetics to computer vision. Given that what we are really awaiting is a new law of physics, intended to be eternal and universal (till the next discovery) — the wait for confirming the Higgs boson hasn't really been that long. As Captain Kirk told the Triskelions, 'All your people must learn before you can reach for the stars.'

COUNTERVIEW

Meghna Roy

Scientists taking us for a ride

It's not for nothing that Nobel prize-winning physicist Leon Lederman once described the Higgs boson as the 'goddamn particle' — later changed by clever publishers to 'God particle'. That conferred on the scientists' quest an aura of deep mysticism and insight, even making it seem like a spiritual quest, when the reality is that modern science is so abstract and esoteric that it hardly offers anything meaningful in human terms.

Let's take the latest burst of excitement over the Cern scientists declaring to the world that they are now 99.9% certain that the Higgs boson they discovered is actually the elusive 'God particle'. Just a few months earlier, however, celebrations had broken out in the scientific world when they told us they had detected the same particle with 99% certainty. Mark that it's not still 100% foolproof. More research and insight, the Cern scientists say, will be needed into the findings to establish beyond any measure of doubt the existence of the Higgs boson. So what exactly are we celebrating? More uncertainty and confusion? Six months down the line, we may again hear from the Cern scientists about new discoveries about the Higgs boson that could change the entire debate. Funnily, like now, even then the public would be struggling to comprehend a fraction of the scientific terminology.

Scientists may even turn around and say that their research is not meant for easy comprehension by all and sundry. But then why treat each discovery as such a spectacle, even when we're not even very sure about what's being talked about? It's actually much ado about nothing, because scientists need large sums of money to fund their esoteric research. Therefore hype, as in clever coinages such as the 'God particle', is needed to con the taxpayer into paying for all the expensive equipment.

However, in my country most people including scientists have religious bent of mind, nevertheless bloggers theist or scientists in the West have no better opinion:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/higgs-boson-discovered

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24758-higgs-nobel-bash-i-was-at-the-party-of-the-universe.html#.Urr7Tc7GW-Y

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29071/higgs-boson-have-we-really-found-it

http://nypost.com/2012/07/08/higgs-boson-discovery-could-make-science-fiction-a-reality/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/06/higgs-boson-physics-hits-buffers-discovery

Is not discovery and confirmation of Higgs Boson is to justify zillions of funding and continuation of funding as well as Nobel Prize? I need not to agree with this view, but I do agree that current researches are reason of this scepticism?

@Mohammad, I agree with your initial point. Most scientist will not deviate from normal science. I understand your point about patience in science; most scientist are not patient.

There's quite a bit of research these days to show that scientists pushed to develop new results, and so discouraged from repeating the experiments of others. This makes it difficult to discover errors. People are also discouraged from disagreeing with others. The emphasis is thus to extend what is already published, maintain the dogma, and be "one of us." Competitiveness is for funding and positions, but no longer for intellectual ideas.

Ask yourself, which would you rather try to get funding for: "I'm going to reproduce the experiements of XYZ to see if they're valid" or "I'm going to work with radically new methodologies, never tried before, in order to demonstrate the work of most of the people on this funding panel is wrong" or "I'm discover something new which confirms and extends the work of XYZ"? I suggest only the latter would get approval. And if 5 years later you returned to them and said, "sorry, it didn't work, but at least I've established this is not a productive methodology," do you think you'd get any more funding?

Luckily my field is philosophy, and our ideas never attain the status of "right" or "wrong." We can't even agree on what those words mean or what constitutes a "fact." That's why we're still debating with ancient Greeks (Aristotle would have loved ResearchGate) :-)