[time-nuts] science projects

Neville Michie namichie at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 22:04:58 UTC 2012


Do not be misled by the conventional theory that scientists develop a  
theory
and then do an experiment to prove it.
This theory was dreamed up by some vertical thinker who was incapable
of any scientific progress. It has been reinforced by commentators who
reconstruct the path of discovery after the event, omitting any  
"unsuccessful"
workers or work from the process as being non-contributors to the  
discovery.
As one who has spent his career in (non-worldshattering) research,  
new science
comes from several directions.
First is just plain hard work, exploring every aspect of anything  
anywhere in an area.
This involves doing the experiment first and developing a theory that  
fits the results.
Then you do another experiment to test the theory.
One of the signs that you look for is some discrepancy in the  
conventional model.
Some experimental result that smells suspicious.
You never know what you might find and what it might mean or be  
useful for.
Directed research is not research but engineering.
Next is when the time has come for an idea. When the time has come,  
it will not
be long before some one tries the combination that leads to discovery.
Equipment and technology is a driver. Forty years ago my research chief
suggested that these new lasers may be useful so we should buy one.
That lead to several steps forward and more than one commercial  
instrument.
Research can be driven by looking for what we do not know. This is
looking for a question that has an uncertain answer.
But research is definitely not developing a hypothesis and then  
proving it.
This must surely have held back progress enormously as bright new  
students get
discouraged by the impossible idea of developing hypothesis about  
something
that has not yet even been thought about.
Maxwell did not hypothesise about radio waves. He just followed his  
genius nose
developing one mathematical expression from another. In this case the  
time had not come,
it took four other scientists years to discover what he had done.
cheers,
Neville Michie

On 10/02/2012, at 3:23 AM, Chris Albertson wrote:

> I think it's odd that all these "science" projects are NOT doing any
> science.   They sound like engineering to me.
>
> So you build a neat mouse trap?  That is not science unless you have a
> theory about mouse behavior and your trap is intended to test the
> theory.    Around here we do have these projects but we call them
> "engineering" and they are judged by engineers.
>
>
> Chris Albertson
> Redondo Beach, California
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ 
> time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.




More information about the time-nuts mailing list