Lament from the Sea, New Method! f2r

[bunny]

[...deleted for brevity...]

I'm not checking the process or validity of people's methods, just compiling the results. In the past I have run through the process of some and spent time testing them, but it is very time consuming and I don't have time to give to that now, so I have to assume any results are honestly produced by a method someone is working on and testing themselves.  It really is just about the results offered up and that they have more in common than not.

Bunny

How can you know which are actually results, if you don't check the process or validity of people's methods? That's giving equal weight to someone who knows what they are doing and is on the right track and someone who's making it up as he or she goes.

Yes, it's time-consuming to check process or validity. Often the willingness to do this kind of legwork is what differentiates the successful researcher from the wanna-be, the wheat from the chaff. There's a wonderful film called, "Why Man Creates" that was made a long time ago that is just as valid today as it was when it was first developed that gives some insight into the dedication it takes to advance knowledge.


Often the results "offered up" by those who DON'T take the time to do the legwork have many commonalities, because people see what they want to see and we have in common our human-centric perceptions. Science is about trying to see (or sense, or record) what's actually there, no matter how improbable—the results are frequently not what we expect.

Again I stress the results are not identical, though some are, but part of a common thread.  Science in the way it is approached today is very un C15th and the assumption of what is actually there is very narrow, what you can see, touch and measure in a very sterile way, not the approach of Kepler, Tycho or the great scientists of the era.  However, it shouldn't bother you or others that some have a different approach if you think it's all rubbish.

Bunny