Hypothesis-Limited Research
This extract was created in the absence of an abstract.
Students are taught that the proper way to do science is through the following steps: First, devise a hypothesis, and then design experiments that will prove or disprove their theory. The conscientious scientist follows this with a deliberate collection of data from these carefully crafted experiments, and the data prove or disprove the aforementioned theory, thereby placing a new stepping stone in the path through the jungle of our unknown universe.
It seems obvious that this is the appropriate way of moving forward in science. In fact, in most published papers, the hypothesis is put forth, followed by the experimental proof, and ending with a restatement of the veracity of the theory and potential future steps. Grants for funding research are also presented in such a light: a pure statement of theoretical intent, with a description of the experiments designed to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis. It is clear that pursuing an answer to a preformed theory is certainly a more cerebral quest than a mindless gathering of data, and it is much more appealing to the ivory-tower mentality in us all. But more importantly, it is obvious that just collecting data, with no hypothesis in mind at all, would be, in a word, wasteful. Gathering tremendous amounts of information with no thought to purpose would certainly provide information, but most of it would be so much clutter that the tremendous amount of time, energy, and money that would …
