The scientific method
is biased, like all frameworks are as they work upon a certain formation which as part of their very structure disallows the incorporation of components which cannot be identified, confirmed, or in some other way 'placed' within that framework.
The very structure of the scientific method, for example, makes it quite hostile to things such as (non-exhaustive): spooks, fantasies, wishes, dreams, bullshit, Biblical literalism, ignorance, obstinacy, non-empirically-derived conclusions, crap that is so obviously false, loosy-goosy philosophy, silliness, and Star Trek physics.
The bias of the scientific method exists because it is a method for answering questions that are relevant to the school of thought of materialism or empiricism - belief in the existence of only that which can be sensed. Someone who wishes to answer questions that are non-material or cannot be answered with empirical evidence will be unlikely to find the scientific method at all useful to their purpose. As a result, application of the scientific method in pursuit of their answer will result in an answer that does not fit their question but is instead
biased to the empirical nature of the scientific method.
In short, if we want to know what is, was, and can be, the scientific method is a fine framework and tool; but if we are interested in fairy tales and other silly shit, the scientific method can be quite a heartless b*tch. Is it reality? Of course. Unbiased? Not in the least.
Jon
[O]ur tiny half-kilogram rock just compeltely fucked up our starship. - Rahvin
™ Version 4.2
