cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suppose you're right but to me personally
> everything begins with observation. Even
> experiment design and interpretation is largely
> observation. I suppose you're right that there are
> other ways that people are motivated to apply
> their knowledge or the sciontific process to
> things. I just don't have much interest until an
> hypothesis or enigma hits me in the face and these
> are the result of observation.
Yes, everything scientific begins with observation, which I often alias as 'data' or 'datum' or 'data points' or 'data set'... these are the initial points of consideration that can be seen or proven as 'facts' without interpretation or biasing. IE the sky is blue during the day (if no clouds)... How blue is an opinion, but it is blue.
But that's the beginning. The hypothesis is in the middle, and you certainly mentioned it colorfully as 'smacking you in the face'
But these are not the result of observation. Noting the sky is blue does not result in a hypothesis without additional stimuli external to the fact that the sky is blue -- ie, a scientist wondering why and formulating a theory.
And there you stop, but the scientific process continues past that point. The scientist, having formulated a theory, proceeds to test it. 'The sky is blue... because air is blue? How do I find the color of air? Oh, it's colorless'... having disproved one theory, he formulates another and another until one holds up to his testing. Then he invites some million friends in on the concept and have them test it as well until no one can disprove the resultant theory.
Yes, the theory that emerges is a result of the testing. See numerous instances above.
And these steps are where both the intuitive leapers and the grunt testers are combined.
the intuitive thinker starts at the 'why' and the grunters start at the 'he's crazy, here's why' and circle back. Both need each other. And yes, I firmly believe we are all capable of both logical thought and intuitive leaps...
OTOH I'm also firmly convinced that an intuitive leap is nothing more than our subconscious exercisin logic and communicating same to our much much slower fore-brains. We then have to figure out how the subconscious arrived at its conclusion in order to prove it's validity
Those are the 'aha' moments followed by grunters working to prove/modify until a consensus works.
And yes, it's science by consensus, as flawed as it is.
But I *STILL* wonder why the lab tech tasted aspartame? (thanks for the correction)
See, the scotch tape adhesive (which also led to postit notes) noticed the stickiness and made the leap to usefulness. But *why* did the fly taste the poison???
And yes, I'm familiar with aspartame & FDA (though 75% is a bit high??)
I live with a fiance who symptomizes a migraine when exposed to more than a trace of denatured proteins, ie MSG, or any artificial sugars. Shopping can be... nightmarish.
I'll gladly discuss any such topic in detail upon request
Chinese obesity figures re: aspartame are flatly astounding.
>
> I suppose the concept that the ancients were
> superb observational scientists (IMO) has colored
> my thinking on the subject.
>
> ____________
> Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2010 11:13AM by sansahansan.