All ideas are a logical interpretation of emotion

The con refutes my previous argument, that scientific theories are in fact an interpretation of emotion by suggesting that if this is true that all scientists "loves pursuing their work, and that they work solely for the thrill of working"and says that this is untrue. The con also suggests that likely some scientists work for other reasons because they see the scientific process as tiresome and perhaps daunting. He suggests that their motivation comes from something outside of science and the ideas they have in the scientific world are thus non-emotionally motivated ideas. In the science world of today, the head researcher of any professional study is responsible for overseeing this research being carried out in the appropriate fashion that will help to answer the scientific question at hand and devise an experimental process to do so. The head researcher does not usually carry out the leg work of setting up the labs, doing the field work, and conducting the tests. They are responsible for interpreting the test results and data that other collect allowing the head researcher to focus on the discoveries of the research. Although this work might still be tiresome, the researcher does not have to be burdened with actually carrying it out and thus can focus their efforts on interpreting the information to answer the question at hand in order to fulfill the initial emotion that sparked the idea for this research and to see if their idea can be correct. In this way the head researcher is the only party contributing original ideas to the research, while every one else involved is just carrying out the orders of the head researcher and trying to fulfill the head researchers ideas. The employees actually conducting the research aren't afforded the option to contribute their own ideas to the research unless the head researcher decides to implement them and only does so if it elicits a specific emotion in the head researcher and they feel it will be beneficial to the overall goal. The people that carry out the process of sanitizing the lab and working with hazardous material are likely just doing their job to get paid. Their motivation to complete the work is based on money that they can then use to fulfill their own emotionally sparked original ideas that may very unrelated to the topic of the research, like building a family. In this way the head researcher is the only real scientist because they are the ones making sure the scientific process is being carried out properly, decide what ideas could and could not be valuable to the overall topic, and do so in order to contribute brand new information to the world in turn satisfying their own sense of wonder about the topic at hand and contributing to humanity with this topic. This is why I emphasized the importance of original ideas being attributed to emotion, because not all people involved in a topic have the same emotional connection to the topic that will lead beneficial ideas for the topic in question. But the head researcher, who first had the idea will undoubtedly try to realize the completion of the idea, the research, with the connection to the initial emotion that sparked the idea. Additionally my con makes the argument that Isaac Newton did not discover gravity based on ideas sparked by emotion, but rather " but, as it goes, an apple fell onto his head, which gave him the idea that it was natural law that things would fall down, rather than fly up". First off, this is a common myth and the scientific community doesn't actually think an apple striking Issac Newton in the head lead him declaring the theory of gravity. Likely the notion of gravity did not come from a fleeting moment of one apple striking him in the head and him being curious about it one time. It was probably more of an obsession of curiosity Newton had when he noticed things like an apple falling from a tree and unintentionally used the scientific process to gather facts and evidence to address the sense of curiosity he felt when he saw an apple fall from a tree and didn't know why. It seems emotions play a consent role in interpreting information serving as a guide for what can be accepted as fact and what can be considered unknown. Newton conducted the scientific process using his sense of curiosity about gravity as his guide to recorded what can be considered fact and what couldn't. Once Newton satisfied the idea born of the curiosity he had of a specific incident he added the facts to his overall idea of gravity, contemplated it, became curious of another factor, and sought to explain his curiosity. An example of this is if he really did witness an apple falling from the tree and was struck by curiosity about why it fell down and didn't go up, it was the initial emotion of curiosity that lead him to uncontrollably question the physics of the apple and his mind translated it into words in order to make sense of the emotion connected to the situation. Although a lot of time might have passed between this initial idea and Newton conducting science to address this idea, it was still the emotion that sparked the idea which led him to conduct the science and in order to authentically address this idea he would have had to interpret the information he gathered by linking it to his original idea in an honest way. Since his original idea was sparked by emotion, as the con seems to agree with, everything followed was connected to that emotion that sparked the idea and thus Newton constantly used this emotion to interpret new information until he was able to satisfy this idea sparked by curiosity as best and authentically as he could. In this way every idea he had about gravity stemmed from that initial moment of curiosity. I think it's important to note that although we use the word curiosity as a standard emotion that everyone experiences the same way, this really isn't the way emotion works. Not everyone experiences curiosity the same way, and one person likely doesn't experience curiosity in the say way each time. Furthermore, people don't usually experience only one emotion at a time, but experience different intensities of multiple emotions from any given situation and it is a persons ability to logically interpret this swirling combination of emotions that a situation elicited and translate them into words to express what we call "an idea" to other people in an effort to convey an understanding of our emotional state that was sparked by a situation. If one is trying to realize an idea, they stop having new original ideas about that specific topic until the over all idea and emotion is made sense of. The process of carrying out the scientific process of gathering facts and evidence may be absent of emotion but then, by this logic, must also be absent of ideas. This statement makes sense because if one is using discipline to try and realize their original idea they aren't focusing their effort on discovering new original ideas of the same topic because their effort is put towards realizing the first idea they had about the topic. I maintain that the way ideas are formed, especially in science, happen in this fashion. Person experiences stimulus -> stimulus elicits emotions -> Person translates emotions in a logical presentation of words -> other people understand the logical interpretation of words and call it an idea.