It requires a quest for the correct answer which overwhelms possib le embarassment at having the answer wrong in light of new data. Even more, it requires an emotional detachment from theory or hypothesis, an ability to let the data reveal the answer--or lack of one--without prejudice, only an attempt to determine if the explanation of a phenomenon is correct.
This, of course, becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as soon as one's theory catapults one to prominence, unless one has the guts (and good fortune) to be the first to step up with new data and say "I/we got it wrong."
One must never lose sight of the fact that knowing what something is not, what process did not cause a specific result, what factors were inconsequential, can be equally or even more valuable than knowing specifically what did.
As Edison might have said, "we know what doesn't work", and that advances knowledge as well.
As for me, the more I learn, the less I know, for each answer only raises more questions.
Black Swan.