> -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 1:28 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 2:15 PM > Subject: RE: Twenty (or so) Questions, was Re: Plonkworthy? > > > > > >
> > I would only add that hypothesis should only be used in > the context of > > fulfilling the initial requirement for the scientific > method process, and > > theory is used in place of proof, if a proof is not complete or not > > possible. > > At least this is what I was taught in High school science, for what > that's > > worth. > > I was taught the same thing in high school science. But, > after a few years > in graduate school I formed a different opinion. The > scientific method is > not as cut and dried as it appears in textbooks. > > First of all, things are not nearly as clear as they are in a > textbook. > The data show some inconsistencies, there are always 2-sd > anomalies that > lead you to investigate blind alleys. Further, > experimentalists rarely > have formulated a hypothesis to test before taking data. Rather, the > hypothesis is much more loose: such as "I bet this would be > an interesting > place to look." > > A good theorist may come up with 5 different ideas in a day. > About one > every day or two is worth trying on colleagues. About one a > month is worth > publishing...at least according to Shelly Glashow, who shares > the Nobel > Prize for the Standard Model. > > So, the scientific method is a lot more about good > experimental technique > (workmanlike effort in the words of a professor I've always > respected) and > thinking about the data and throwing models at it until one sticks. Isn't it really the difference between a pragmatic vs idealistic approach? Scientists write papers, and engineers do what it takes, even if it violates scientific method? It seems as though modern scientists are caught between the two approaches - held to the Scientific method, but expected to use non-scientific intuition to make leaps. It must be a tough business. Nerd from Hell > > Dan M. > > > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
