If the scientist is attempting to make science their means of gainful employment, the realities of grants and publications heavily favoring positive results may make them reasonably disquieted.

Let’s be real here. If a scientist had an idea and it doesn’t work out, they’re not smiling. It sucks. And publishing negative results is really not a thing even if it ought to be.

The best scientists go into very heated debates about their theories. They neither suddenly go downtrodden or suddenly smile. And yet the best science is acquired in an absence of emotion. Funny how it all works out.

We tend to idealize the individual endeavors of taking part in the scientific method. Far from reality, the scientific method usually works because it pits a lot of self-important nerds against each other trying to prove the other wrong, which is what allows us to get over individual biases, even if it sometimes takes decades.

I would even go as far as to say that we need the scientific method because it’s resilient enough against humans’ natural stupidity, provided we apply it well enough for long enough.