In a message dated 1/28/2003 9:07:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, Philip Hart <philiph at SLAC.Stanford.EDU> writes: > Both the models presented below are too simplistic. In my > field (particle physics) there are experimentalists who > build machines just to see what's out there I don't consider "Let's see what happens when I do this" to be part of the Scientific Method. Scientific discovery, yes, but (IMO) the methodolgy doesn't start until "I wonder why it did that?" > and others who build machines to check theoretical > predictions; and theorists who make theories based on data > and some who make theories based on aesthetics. Calling something a "theory" when you have NO data to support it is, to me, presumptious and unscientific. > I happen to be looking for something nobody (including me) > expects to find using an experiment designed to test a > 30-year-old theory. I don't see any conflict between this and the methodology I posted. --KG