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 involved are thought to be irrelevant to the task at hand. But might this be a dangerous mistake? Critics argue the particular perspective of the scientist is a key element in the formation of theories and 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'. A statement of his worldview, not a scientific claim. While accounts of the human brain often reflect the historical time and perspective of the researcher involved - once the brain was explained as being like a steam engine, then a form of telephone exchange, and now is described in terms of computer processes.
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 personal opinions and perspectives?