Final answer:
According to Brockington, the authors critique scientific neutrality by highlighting how subjectivity and biases can influence scientific research, despite the aim for objectivity.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Brockington, the authors critique scientific neutrality. This critique suggests that while writers in scientific and technical fields strive for objective analysis based on data, factual accuracy, and avoidance of personal bias, the reality may differ. The presence of subjectivity, conscious or unconscious biases, and the choice of which data to consider can challenge the neutrality of scientific endeavors. For instance, consciously or unconsciously rejecting evidence that conflicts with a preconceived idea, or only looking for evidence that supports an idea, can undermine the objective stance that science purports to adopt.
Moreover, the check for understanding implies that scientific explanations must be testable and judged on objective observations. However, the understanding that once observation supports a theory it can be seen as fact is a misleading way to describe the scientific method, which in fact always remains open to revision and further testing.
Thus, scientific neutrality, while held as an ideal in theory, may be compromised by the way authors convey their stance and by the methodology used in their research and analysis.