Scientific method has been routinely taught as identifying a question, creating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis. That is a very focused approach, one that has had great success. It is important, however, not to be so focused as to not to attend to ancillary findings. Blinded studies for specific responses, wherein the experimenter is unaware of the participants (e.g., drug or placebo) identity are clearly influenced by expectations. Thus, there is a placebo effect, whether positive or negative. Examining each theory and testing it step by step has been emphasized at the expense of observational studies, experiments performed when the tester has no specific expectation of results. Such are sometimes derided as “fishing expeditions,” ignoring their role in advancing science by identifying new subjects for investigation or exposing inconvenient truths – findings which do not conform to conventional thinking, the “collective consciousness” of a given field. Many of those assumptions, right or wrong, have never been actually tested.
Many activities are pursued without foresight as to future implications. We all record data aimed at answering a specific question, sometimes without consideration of how that data might be utilized in the future to address other questions. A classic example is recording perceptions as degree, extent or magnitude, rather than recording the actual finding. That approach is predicated on the assumption that the perceived degree/extent/magnitude represent a spectrum of findings relatable to a single phenomenon. That might be a reasonable approach if the degree/extent/magnitude assumption was validated. However, that assumes that the classification will not be modified in the future and components subsequently recognized as unrelated. Such would significantly reduce its value for incorporation into future analyses.
No comments:
Post a Comment