How Theory Led Results Differ from Result Led Theory

Recently in science, especially big, monetary return-based, or status-based science we seem to have had a change in the way that the ‘scientific method’ operates.

In the past, because there was a lesser level of knowledge, theory always followed the facts. There were many experiments to see what was going on, and then, when the results from these were analysed a theory could be generated.  But there has been a change in this method with theories abounding about the nature of matter, where elegant and ordered theories come before the results to check to see if this is correct.

In the past we have testing, testing and further testing, then a theory is generated then tested against the results, and if it fails to confirm, the theory is scrapped or changed.

The current method of generating elegant theories is tested after the theory, then if the results don’t agree with this, checking up on the results that don’t agree, quite often finding they are not as rigorous as would be liked, so they can be mostly dismissed as erroneous, the facts or results that do agree rarely going through this similar process. After all they agree with the theory, so they must be better and not have the faults of the negative ones.

Take tossing of a coin, the theory being the head of a coin is considered slightly heavier, so it should stay on the bottom. You get various results, 50% heads, 50% tails uppermost, but then the heads uppermost are checked for diligence, finding that 10% were not tossed correctly, the tails uppermost considered correct, so the results are 40% heads uppermost, 50% tails uppermost and 10% dismissed as erroneous or faulty data. This proves that 55.6% are tails uppermost and 44.4% are heads uppermost, the tails being achieved over heads by 20%, a very significant and decisive figure.

Case proven. The facts, unless they were a very bad coin are nonsense though, and science goes onto the next theory based on this nonsense as its basis, building an imaginary and pre-designated structure. Now translate this into big science, where the returns in both money and kudos out-shadow the facts, needing to show something for the investment, even if it is incorrect. Be decisive and directed, not shilly-shallying and weak, the order of the day, a decisive bad decision being preferable over a weak one of doubt. The next investigation is called a paradigm shift when it proves it to be mostly rubbish thinking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *