RE: scientific method

["Stewart, Dwight" <Dwight.Stewart@VLSI.com>]

As an old Prof of mine said over & over; "Run the experiment AGAIN!  We need
more data... more data!"  Then he would normally take a couple of Excedrin &
berate me further for "sloppy, sloppy work & jumping to conclusions"
:-)     To me, discussion & evaluation & RE evaluation of data, hypothesis,
interpretations is vital in ALL sciences.
Negative input should not be viewed as "bad" or taken as personal.  We are
not (after all) seeking "truth" here,
We are evaluating theories, hypothesis, & conclusions with the use of data.
And, YES INDEED, physics & all sciences have their problems (perhaps not as
embarrassing as the cold fusion bruhaha, ahmmm...) but
Problems.

Did anyone see the Discovery Channel special about the Komodo dragon?  There
was an excellent discussion of the advantages of ectothermia.  And, there
was a detailed description of predator vs. scavenger status.  To whit,
volcanic ash from neighboring islands routinely blanket the islands on which
these animals reside plus which, there are also periodic fires that cover
vast areas.  The dragons normally survive these precisely because their
ectothermic status allows them to go 3-4 months with no food.  They live off
the fat stored in their tails.  It showed adult dragons acting as predators
AND as scavengers, based on the availability of food.  

Dwight
        -----Original Message-----
        From:   paul sparks [SMTP:psparks@crosslink.net]
        Sent:   Thursday, September 03, 1998 3:59 AM
        To:     dino list
        Subject:        scientific method

        Hi Gang
         
        On the useful side of the discussions (?) between carpender and
george and others is a good discussion of how to do science esp by tom
holtz. I would like to emphasize that physics has its problems too and data
can be misread and/or mistreated. (I'm and old physic type). However there
are some things that are done right. Implrtant experiments that produce
significant data and data assessment and not excepted unless another
experimenter or group has verified the results. Its just too expensive in
time and money to use results that are later proved to be wrong. I could use
the low temp fusion fiasco as an example. So what we do is reproduce and
then argue and all that fun stuff.
         
        There may be value in using that approach especially in key findings
by having a second independent description based on the known material with
their own hands. Thus published would ,I think, provide a basis for analysis
without the requirement to handle all the data (fossils) extant. 
         
        comments?