Dario. Yes I believe this to be true. But always?? No, of course not.
There have been exceptions. But in my own experience, this has been
the way things worked in the vast majority of studies.
>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.
Because of limited time, money, and personel, every researcher has to
focus their efforts on a selected field area. In geology, these field
areas are normally chosen in one of two ways. When going into an area
where we know nothing or very little, we usually do some reconnaissance
to locate a smaller area which has the most revealing detail. By
decyphering this detail, we then form a working hypothesis that is
tested as we move out from that area.
The second method is probably more common and is closer to your comment.
Previous work in the area has shown that there are some unresolved
differences. When this happens, the field area is selected specifically
to resolve those problems. The result then can be that one or the other
views is proven right but more commonly the result is that both views
need to be modified to take into account the new data that is found.
Let me briefly illustrate with my first exposure to this methodology.
Back in Geology Field Camp, we were paired into two groups in order to
map a large area with igneous intrusions in metamorphic rocks in a
single week. The instructors conveniently (and somewhat maliciously!)
chose the boundary between our adjacent areas to be a brushy ravine
with very limited exposure of rock. At the conclusion of the week
we were assigned a partner from the other group and instructed to
combine our maps into one single product. Unfortunately, my partner
was obviously wrong since he had mapped a totally different rock type
up to that brushy ravine border than that which I had mapped on the
other side. After much heated discussion (especially since our weekly
grade depending on the final combined map), we finally decided that
there had to be a fault or contact hidden in that ravine that separated
our two rock types. We turned in our combined map complete with a
covered fault that divided his work from mine. On Saturday, the
instructors took excessive glee in demonstrating how this single
intrusive igneous body graded from one rock type in the center to
another at the edge where country rock had been melted and incorporated.
When working outward as I had up to the ravine, I had overlooked the
slight changes in composition near the edge of my map. My partner had
done the same from the opposite direction. Although my grade suffered,
I had learned a vital lesson in geology and for science in general.
The only real way to resolve our differences was to go back to the
rocks at the point where we differed and test our hypotheses. Sitting
in camp arguing about our interpretations didn't solve the problem.
>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.
Scientists (or at least geologists) are no different than other people
when it comes to emotions and egos. We have them and they influence what
we do. And just like in other unnamed professions, I seriously doubt
that I do my best work on Mondays :-)! Yet science as a whole progresses
despite the emotion that individuals might attach to their ideas.
Because scientists are keenly aware of the impact of personal attachment
to ideas, we present those ideas for peer review (which is an extremely
frightening and humbling experience for most of us!).
>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.
I agree that when there are conflicting views in science, "one needs to
look a little deeper to find the reason why". But by "deeper", I mean
deeper into the data or interpretations of that data and not deeper into
the personality or emotions of the person(s) involved in the conflict.
The best resolutions can be found when both sides sit down with the data
or evidence and come to some common ground and not by judging the intent,
emotions, or personality of those who disagree with us.
Side comment to L. Gibson and others with the same question. IMHO is
generally known as internet shorthand for "In my honest opinion ..."
Steve
[Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are my own
and should not be attributed to my employer]
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: ////// Steven M. Smith Office: (303)236-1192 ::
:: |----OO U.S. Geological Survey Message: (303)236-1800 ::
:: C > Box 25046, M.S. 973, DFC Fax: (303)236-3200 ::
:: \__~/ Denver, CO 80225 smsmith@helios.cr.usgs.gov ::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::