Scientific method biased..?

When considering the scientific method, it helps a lot to listen to Karl Popper.1. The scientific method creates an objective knowledge. When a scientist produces a theory that is published, it is no longer his. It belongs to society. It is an addition to the universal objective knowledge.2. The scientist, not only relies in his experimentation, but in all pertinent published knowledge (objective knowledge). In fact there are theories produced by pure theorists, like Max Planck, founder of Quantum Mechanics, that was a theoretical physicist. Most of Darwin conclusions were worked out from other naturalist’s works.3. No amount of positive confirmation is enough to validate any theory. One negative result suffices to invalidate it. For this reason, any theory needs to have the possibility to be falseated (proved false) in order to be scientific. Based on this, K. Popper, for instance, considered that Psychoanalysis was not science, because it was not possible to submit it to falseation process.4. Theories are not true or false. They are approximations to truth.All this for K. Popper. Now for me, and regarding the main subject of this thread, bias, I would call it a tendency for any theory to resists competing ones. It is quite natural, but at the end selection does its work. The same mentioned Max Planck, explains how he found great resistance for the new concepts of Physics, by the guardians of the old theories.

As a Philosopher, Popper said how things ought to be. Kuhn was more a historian, and explained how they in fact are. Nevertheless, my sympathy goes for Popper.

Yes, but. These scientists should reflect on the fact, that at the end the final result is not very different from the result of dogma: barring progress. No matter how exceptional a theory has been for the progress of a science, it can not expect to last for ever. It should be prepared to produce offsprings!

I prefer to admit that this is too cryptic for me.