The temptation is to formulate a theory that explains what is, and how it works, and why, and we've all been told that one should avoid bias, and try to remain objective as much as possible - but, is there a useful principle that we can come up with and bear in mind to make this easier to understand and remember?
Consider the following as a template or a suggestion, and this thread as a discussion meant to both inform and inspire you.
The foundation of the modern scientific method stems from the idea of verification, and falsification. You can find numerous articles going into depth on these ideas, but in brief, I will summarize them here.
If a hypothesis or a conjecture has no way of being false, ever, then there is no way that it can ever be proven to be true. This is why speculations such as solipsism, and statements such as 'nothing is true' and other forms of extreme skepticism, are necessarily self-refuting and meaningless or arbitrary.
Consider the following as an alternative way of looking at science, and perhaps a better way in the face of mainstream values that tell us that we should be so open-minded and accepting of everything.
The real value of a theory, of a law, or of science itself for that matter, is not in what it allows us to do, or what it tells us is true - but, in what it does not allow us to do, and in what it tells us is not true. Science is the creation and discovery of limits to knowledge and reality. It is by limiting ourselves to specifics and certainty, that we can summarily reject, through analysis and criticism, what is untrue, false, and meaningless or without purpose.
Looking at reality through this lens of trying to refute everything you possibly can is the other side of the coin, and the other half of the scientific method. So, young scientists and brave new minds, seek not to formulate your conjecture solely on what might be true, and what could be possible, but also, on what might not be true and on what might not be possible.
If this is already your approach, then consider the inverse of what I am saying. The point is to find the right balance between skepticism and open-mindedness. One the one hand, do not reject any objective input from others, from yourself, or from anything. But, do not be drawn into feelings of sympathy, or let your desire for validity and acceptance blight your sharp mind down to a dull instrument that will, in the end, only do more harm than good to both yourself, and the scientific community.
*gathers his papers and steps down from the soap box*