Neutrality's Pursuit Of Knowledge

Neutrality is often understood as the absence of bias. If one is truly neutral, one’s opinion on the matter is often resolved as having no opinion on the matter, as it is defined: “not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.” Thus, the implication of a neutral question is that the aim is to gather knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than to use the knowledge to confirm preconceived assumptions.
Questions meant to influence answers are ‘leading questions,’ which can be defined as “a question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer.” The prescribed title suggests that the existence of a neutral question is impossible, and that all questions are leading questions that intend

However, our preconceived notions often blind us in the process, leading us to accept “lesser truths” instead of allowing ourselves to experience a paradigm shift.
Therefore, is it possible to differentiate between the “pursuit of knowledge” and “humanity’s pursuit of knowledge”? I believe so. A common occurrence throughout history is actions made out of good intentions having unexpected consequences. Understanding a universal truth is a premise that forms the base of all areas of knowledge—especially the sciences. The pursuit of knowledge is a concept that lies beyond us, similar to other abstract notions such as “true love” or “happiness.” Ultimately, our experiences obscure our judgement and lead us down paths of bias.
Then, To what extent can questions be considered neutral?, explores whether questions can be partially neutral or even neutral at all. We assume most questions to be inherently biased because we tend to project our current knowledge or opinion onto our questions, no matter how innocuously. The difference between “Is it raining?” and “It’s raining?” is paramount in a conversation. The first implies the asker has no knowledge of the weather, while the latter implies disbelief. Moreover, adding vocal stresses to the questions further suggests an individual’s prior disposition. The same question can become “Is it raining?” or “Is it

Artists often embrace leading questions as a way to startle their audience—to force them to consider the implications of the artwork. Renaissance painter Artemisia Gentileschi is known for her paintings showing the plight of women in biblical and mythical stories. One of her paintings, Giuditta decapita Oloferne (Judith decapitating Holofernes), is a good example of a painting designed to challenge its audience. In this grisly scene, Artemisia depicts herself as Judith, holding the dagger that is cutting off Holofernes head, and Holofernes as her rapist Agostino Tassi. The implication is not subtle—this is a woman existing in a period of oppression who may be trying to instill a sense of shame in her audience. She was a victim who received no redress and thus felt that she had to take control of her autonomy and symbolically behead her