On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Dario Giraldo wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Steven M. Smith wrote:
>
> > snip...
> >
> > Each of those "students" of the Grand Canyon spend large amounts of time,
> > money, and effort studying a small portion within the entire system. From
> > the evidence gathered, these researchers form a hypothesis that explains
> > what happened within their field area.
> >
>
> On the risk of cavil, in real life, is this true always ?
>
> Quite a few of the material about researchs that I have read, showed the
> team having a preconceived idea of what happened and then they proceeded
> to go out and gather the evidence for their hypothesis to make it a thesis
> or theory. In some cases the evidence proved their ideas wrong and they
> look so dissapointed. In others, it didn't really match 100% their ideas
> and they tried to find a 'fit'. And lastly, when the evidence matched
> their hypothesis, they were ecstatic. Emotions normal to all of these
> situations, I think.
>
> That is why, imho, I believe when there appears to be conflicting views on
> the same evidence or issue one needs to look a little deeper to find the
> reason why. Stats and data is pure information and this alone isn't
> sufficient.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
> Dario Giraldo
> Lacey, Washington
>
>