Terence Kealey, as part of a larger argument about university reform, argues that scientists are not objective. Historians should have seen that myth go by the wayside
long ago, but this argument is interesting:
The popular myth is that scholars are disinterested seekers after truth
but, although researchers are generally honest folk, they are not
disinterested: in fact, they behave not as judges but as advocates. And
advocates are not impartial.
. . . scientists cannot collect all the available facts dispassionately. There
are so many facts out there that scientists are forced to select, by
instinct and hunch, the facts they believe are germane. Their
pre-selected facts pre-ordain the hypotheses they test.
Science therefore, like scholarship generally, is performed by biased,
self-interested advocates. And the bias and the self-interest can be
measured. . . .
University professors and practicing clinicians, therefore, publish
findings that support their sources of money. Equally, now that the
state supports so much scholarship and research, academics are generally
supportive of political parties that support the public funding of
universities.
