Is it reasonable to not study previous research to avoid bias? I am currently a student at a tech school and otherwise unemployed.  I’ve never been a scientist or published a paper.

So I am a little skeptical of some results I have been hearing about experiments using computer simulations, and I would like to at some point do my own experiment.  (The topic is among differences in gender, homosexuality, global warming, etc., i.e. a topic that can provoke emotions.)

I figured that I should probably learn as much about research as I can before I do any experiment.  On the other hand if I learn how exactly the others did their experiment that would bias how I construct mine.  I would be prone to solving problems by doing the same thing rather than coming up with a new way to test it.

So does it make any sense to limit the study of existing experiments for the sake of more diverse testing, or should I try to learn as much about them as I can?
You should write down your thoughts now, then get on and do the proper research, before trying to do any experiment, if you wish to be taken seriously. While there is a need for radically different ideas, most research succeeds by following what has been done before ('standing on the shoulders of giants'). It is very unlikely that you will come up with something amazing without any reference to all the other intelligent people who have thought long and hard about the issue. 

If you did come up with something, but without reference to any other work, the likelihood is that you would be seen as a 'nutcase', or at least viewed with deep suspicion, until you could explain yourself very clearly. Your research should not be about simply accepting what others have said. You should think critically about it, and question their assumptions and conclusions. For the most part, you do not find new ways of doing things by working in isolation, but by looking at what others have done and making different choices where you aren't fully convinced by the justification for their choice.