One of the main features of Language Faculty Science is its attempt to stick to intellectual honesty as addressed by Richard Feynman in his "Cargo Cult Science" among other places, and also addressed by many other people.

I copy part of [35922] "Cargo Cult Science by Richard Feynman" here, which is under [34437] "Intellectual Honesty" under [34390] "Sneak previews of the book I hope I will soon finish." (As noted in [42418], I did not publish the book...)

Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they're missing. But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

The thread was under a larger thread about my 2009 ms. A Foundation of Generative Grammar as an Empirical Science. In Language Faculty Science, I try my best to present my methodological proposal and its empirical illustration so as to make it as easy as possible for others to find out what might be wrong with what I claim. I am right now revising the templates for summary charts of experimental results precisely for that purpose.

Please see [44447] "The issue of testability" and [44414] "Advertisement and scientific integrity" for related remarks, under [44413] "A key to language faculty science as an exact science" at the "General Remarks" board.