It is important to know how the theoretical and experimental physicists of different views are generated from a scientist developing its statements and sentences that are declared through a set of propositions , which become belief systems.

Contributing to the main question , I will from :

a) The field of scientific research

There are many epistemological problems in the physical sciences , which require absolute seriousness to address them.

Mention two problems of quantum physics , which I have serious complications from the belief systems that have personally or collectively scientific research area .

1 - Positivist Copenhagen Interpretation nowadays many physicists are still working .

- Phenomenalist Thesis : It says that the existence of the physical object is dependent on who observes and describes .

2 - Schrodinger equation ( presents epistemological beliefs systems that do not validate the nature of physical objects )

- The Schrodinger equation is one of the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics equation that says nothing about the beliefs of those who observe the physical facts or instruments or equipment which are made by belief systems of the observers themselves.

It seems very important to help these systems epistemological beliefs that somehow hinder mannered one or more ways of thinking about science, making them as a mechanism to generate this break that prevents researchers get a better view on actual physical facts.

Science is anchored in cultural beliefs and practices. As a matter of fact, any theory that is developed at any time in any particular moment will for sure have different interpretations, uses, and consequences in another place and time - depending precisely on the cultural framework. The very history of science (in general) shows this. The trouble, however, is that many times such a cultural mattress (so to speak) is not considered.

Traditionally an internalist view of science has prevailed, as if the (falsely) so-called external history of science was not important. That is, at least, the case with mainstream science.

Carlos, Ruben and Xavier thanks for answers. I always thinking that scientists with different cultures have different epistemological beliefs and impact of these beliefs on different scientific fields are not equal. I think one of the reasons that scientific production in various fields is different between developed countries is difference in epistemology. Just for example Japan is very good in producing science of molecular biology and ... but fair in psychology! I am interested to know there is any systematic studies on this matter?

Dear Mir-Shaharam,

I reckon different nations success in certain areas is not exclusively epistemological,

it has also to do with their aptitude and cultural intelligence,  perseverance, resilience,

leadership practices....

this  might  provide some insight :

http://home.trg-inc.com/sites/default/files/TRGResources/Diversity/Cultural%20Intelligence.pdf