18-02-2017, 12:15 PM
I guess the difference with exact sciences is that they generally have a very practical component. Like that you'll find out the hard way when something is wrong. Like when some communications device they sent out into space was malfunctioning, turned out they forgot to account for the doppler effect.
We don't really have such a test, so I agree that we must always be aware of this. Likely all of us are wrong about a number of things we believe about the manuscript. I communicate openly about having changed my mind because that's just the honest thing to do both to others and towards oneself. There is no shame in advancing or revolutionizing insights, on the contrary. Without it we'd still be living in caves
Being explicit about unknowns is part of the same story. Every hypothesis we put forward will have some holes in it, some problems. Pointing those out is in effect a suggestion for further research, which can only be encouraged.
It's also important what Nick says about hypotheses. They are absolutely required because they offer some foothold, frames of reference. But they must remain hypotheses until enough evidence has been found.
We don't really have such a test, so I agree that we must always be aware of this. Likely all of us are wrong about a number of things we believe about the manuscript. I communicate openly about having changed my mind because that's just the honest thing to do both to others and towards oneself. There is no shame in advancing or revolutionizing insights, on the contrary. Without it we'd still be living in caves
Being explicit about unknowns is part of the same story. Every hypothesis we put forward will have some holes in it, some problems. Pointing those out is in effect a suggestion for further research, which can only be encouraged.
It's also important what Nick says about hypotheses. They are absolutely required because they offer some foothold, frames of reference. But they must remain hypotheses until enough evidence has been found.