Re: thinking, loose ends, chaos, and assumptions

James McKelvey wrote: 
In article <1114787439.425209.276630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
 "don findlay" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


If scientists were truly thinking about their field there would be so
many unanswered loose ends it would just dissolve into chaos.  To get
anywhere you have to make certain assumptions to begin with.

In general (i.e., being non-specific and inclusive as possible) what
are assumptions based on?

I'll kick it off and say a belief. All in favour say 'Aye' 

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you always have gotten.

While in school I had some profs who insisted first we read the literature, then we form an hypothesis, and finally as step 3, we visit a site where we wanted to test the hypothesis.

My preferred method of inquiry is to visit a site, look around at what's happening, or what is unusual, form an hypothesis, THEN read the literature looking for similar occurrences and how they were tested, and devise some sort of test for the site to test the hypothesis I had developed and researched.

This got me into all sorts of trouble, and I was criticized for being unscientific, because I did not anticipate a result BEFORE performing the test (a move, in my mind, which I naively believed might influence the results of the test.)

At this point in my life I realize there are two approaches to science: one deterministic and predictable, and most often used in cases where science is being used to buttress a predetermined point of view. Sort of like the the tobacco studies done by tobacco companies showing that smoking improves productivity and sociability and lengthens life by relieving stress as you engage in a commonly accepted activity, and says nothing about lung cancer. You can earn a very good paycheck by doing this sort of science.

The other sort of science is rather serendiptious--you start out with a general field of interest, and investigate aspects of that field, but you are never entirely sure of your end result until you get there. Sort of like solving a puzzle by testing each piece of the puzzle, but the big picture does not come into view until fairly late in the process as you place the tested puzzle pieces together. This sort of science is somewhat speculative, and only rarely is anyone actually paid to do it. In one sort you start with an expected result and tailor your hypothesis and data to fit. In the second, you concentrate on collecting reliable data, and at some point, an hypothesis emerges from that data. This method of doing science is more economically speculative, since many sponsors or employers want verified results, not necessarily novel insights and new ideas.

Both approaches are called "science." I suspect on of them really isn't science, but instead uses scientific trappings for its own ends.





.