From the origins of the universe to the functioning of the brain, we see science as a quest for the underlying truth of things. The worldviews and personal opinions of the scientists are thought to be irrelevant. But might this be a dangerous mistake? Critics argue the personal experience and outlook of the scientist is a key element that cannot be eradicated. Einstein's criticism of quantum mechanics for example was ultimately based on his personal view that 'God does not play dice with the world'. While accounts of the brain reflect the historical time and perspectives of the scientists involved – once the brain was seen as a telephone exchange, now it is commonly described as a computer.
Should we conclude that all scientific theories are influenced by the personal outlook of the scientist, and the particular worldview they hold? As a result, do we need to ensure that scientists hold a wide range of different outlooks and have varied personal backgrounds? Or is such an approach fundamentally misguided, and instead science should always seek to eradicate the personal and focus on the brilliance of the theory alone?
Philosopher of extinction Ben Ware, mathematics and climate physicist Tim Palmer, and professor of theoretical physics Marika Taylor, debate science and objectivity.