Sides? You first decide on the conclusion you want, and then you do the literature research and carry out the experiments, to support your conclusions?

Me thinks you've got things back to front. Your doing it upside down.

But yes, there's a well know problem with an asymmetry, of negative results being less likely to be published than positive ones. In fact, some research might be abandoned incomplete, when it seems that it will lead to a negative result.



Depends on how you define "favourable". If the "unfavourable" results are the inconclusive ones, it may make more sense. A larger data set might help with that. No bad intention need be inferred. Unless you actually cherry pick the results.



I was recently listening to a radio program. One caller was saying that scientists should be open and receptive to homeopathy. The hosts were saying things like homeopathy cannot be scientifically explained, so it should not be considered scientific. Well, no. Just because you couldn't explain something, does not mean that the observation should be discarded. Didn't we learn anything from that sorry episode with Galileo 500 years ago?



Do both. There is nothing sacred in science. Every theory is tentatively accepted, until a better one comes along.

Of course sometimes, it is just bad data. Like that recent thing with FTL neutrinos.