Being something of a non scientist, except perhaps in my own delusional mind, I fancied clarifying my views on science with the input of your good selves.

Of late, many scientists I've read about in my usual rag, 'New Scientist', seem determined to prove a single theory they have concocted with regards to freedom of will over pre-programmed behaviour, or quantum computing and the limitiations of relativity in the field of superluminal information.

My query therefore is on the principle of science, I have long taken the view that one should not become bent on proving a single theory, but rather on observing if it is true.  A subtle shade of ethics perhaps, so let me clarify my views.

Take the field of cosmology, we have reason to believe black holes exist, but due to the fact they emit nothing, not even light, we can't see them.  That does not mean they do not exist, because we see the effects of their presence, in the gravitaional lensing of light, and the red-shifting of the radiation background.
We observe the effects of something, then theorise as to its cause, rather than theorise, then prove.  Is this just the product of whimiscal thinking, perhaps I'm too ideological, but it does seem like many would rather prove themselves right, creating something of a one-tracked mind approach, detrimental to the field of science.  Discuss.