On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 19:57:35 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 1/28/2003 4:46:21 PM Eastern Standard >Time, Chris Olson - SunPS <Chrisf.Olson at Sun.COM> writes: > >> But I'm curious: are you suggesting that scientists the >> world around use The Method as the ONLY way of research? >> That doesn't sound right to me, even if it is. (And if it >> is, and it can be proved to me, I'd be tempted to change my >> opinion and join the other side.) > >Okay, just so we're talking about the same thing, this is >what I think of as the Scientific Method: > >1. Gather data >2. Form hypothesis >3. Devise experiments to test hypothesis >4. Compare results >5. Revise hypothesis >6. Repeat previous three steps until confident you're right >7. Publish so other scientists can try to reproduce your >results and find holes in your assumptions and chain of >logic, etc. > >I'm pretty sure this was in fact taught to me in Jr. High >(with maybe a few simplifications, but that last step was >present). > >As to your question, no, there are "scientists" who don't >follow these steps, and for that reason I won't take them >seriously. > >And to answer Andrew's comments, I expect archaeologists to >try to follow this methodology too. Obviously, devising >experiments is very difficult for them (and control groups >are out of the question; you get what you dig up), but that >just places more importance on the other steps (analysing >other's data, both before and after). > > >--KG One key about the method as listed is, often times, I'd even say most times, a hypothesis is formed first, data is collected, and the revisions begin. -- lazarus "Therefore, my Harry, Be it thy course to busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels; that action, hence borne out, may waste the memory of the former days." -- King Henry IV, Part ii Act 4, Scene 5