Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r

[Diane]

Koen, JKP,

Please don't think this is antagonist question - I think it's a genuinely interesting academic question that is worth talking about and if you guys agree, I'll start a new thread for it.

JKP said something I immediately agreed with - then thought it over and realised that it implies what might be a circular argument. I'd like the chance to talk it over.  It's this:

It's theory-building, not data collection. There's a big difference.

The question that arose was: if data-collection follows the expression of some aim, then what informs that aim would appear to be a belief in things we already suppose -  believe enough to let it define the parameters of the search - while still not having enough evidence to support?  Isn't data collection then just a form of theory-building? 

I suppose some data is value-neutral - like counting details as Koen's recent posts do - but I can't see that there are many forms of data-collection not affected by presumptions and expectations... like supposing the calendar an astrological-use zodiac, then collecting images of astrological charts and astrologers' zodiacs without first stopping to ask 'for what use  was this series of images, inscribed with month-names, intended? Why doesn't it present as a standard series of the Greco-Roman constellations..?'  What other possibilities are there?

So how is data-collection not a function of theory-building.. in your opinion?  I think the question's a fundamental issue..new thread?