issue 184 没数据前推理乃大错

crazyjooUID: 2805124

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 592          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-8-8 16:50:54


Is it unreasonable to theorize before one has data? The speaker agrees with this assertion for the very reason that data is the foundation upon which the relevant reasoning can advances. In my view, to theorize before one has data is as important as to theorize after one has data since they represent two crucial way of scientific research--inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing.


Admittedly, to theorize from existing data, that is, inductive theorizing appears to be more convincing than to theorize before one has data. In fact, many experiments and researches are conducted by inductive theorizing. By sending questionnaire, researchers collect the data which will definitely help their reasoning process. By analyzing the data, researchers can use their professional knowledge to grasp the gist and finally arrive to a general conclusion. For example, it is not uncommon to see that many advertisements advocate the effort of products by using the result of survey such as eighty percent of respondents place high value of the product. At the same time, audiences also begin to theorize from the data cited in the advertisement and draw their own conclusion. Conversely, an advertisement without concrete data is not supposed to be convincing.

However, to theorize before one has data, that is to say, deductive theorizing is also a crucial tool employed by scientists. As a threshold problem, we should declare that deductive theorizing is not to theorize without any data but to theorize based on existing data which might not directly relevant to the current objectives. Scientific research is an exploration of unknown to find answers to our questions. If scientists do not start their research until they have got relevant data, the pace of science will be halted accordingly. Disciplines such as mathematics and astronomy, bald assumption serves to facilitate the development of research. One example aptly illustrates this point involved the hypothesis of DNA structure. Limited by facilities and technologies, James D Watson and Clark cannot use advanced microscope or other measures to observe the structure of DNA. All they got is relevant chemical and physical experiments. Merely based on these result of study, they assume that the structure of DNA is double helix. This seemingly dubious assumption was later proven to be an accurate one by following scientific experiments. In this respect, an provident hypothesis will tremendously accelerate the development of sciences.

Likewise, to some extent, an error hypothesis will also be beneficial. Take the hypothesis of DNA structure as example again. If the following experiments prove that this hypothesis is a wrong one, although people would be a little disappoint, however, wrong hypothesis also serves to inform people what is unworkable. That is to say, people would avoid squandering money and human resource on the study of double helix structure.

Further, we human being not only benefit from correct or wrong hypothesis but also stand to gain a lot of those hypothesis which has no answer yet. One striking example is Gold Bach's conjecture, the most famous puzzle in mathematics area. During the process of discovering the correctness of error of this hypothesis, in order to solve this puzzle, scientists create many new measures and technologies. Fortunately, these new technologies are not exclusive to Gold Bach's conjecture, most of them can be applied to other areas.

As shown above, it is a grave mistake to say that to theorize before one has data is wrong. Inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing are indisputable to scientific research. The former one make the academy more convincing and systematic and the latter one make it more creative.

starfirezhuUID: 2842465

TOPIC: ISSUE184 - "It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."
WORDS: 592          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2010-8-8 16:50:54

[Implication]: No data, no theory!

[Position]: Basically true, but many times a new theory may be deduced from other theories without data.

[Outlines]:
1. We usually theorize after we have data. This is normally the case when we deals with a totally new realm. e.g. Axioms.  Induction from data to theory.
2. In many other cases, new theories can be deducted from old ones. Deduction from theories to theories and even facts. e.g. Prediction of new planets....
3. We should discern under certain situations whether we can theorize without data or not.
4. Data is importance for most foundamental theories but is not necessary for others. Anyway good theories can be finally proved by data and facts.

Is it unreasonable to theorize before one has data? The speaker agrees with this assertion for the very reason that data is the foundation upon which the relevant reasoning can advances. In my view, to theorize before one has data is as important as to theorize after one has data since they represent two crucial way of scientific research--inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing.


Admittedly, to theorize from existing data, that is, inductive theorizing appears to be more convincing than to theorize before one has data. In fact, many experiments and researches are conducted by inductive theorizing. By sending questionnaire, researchers collect the data which will definitely help their reasoning process. By analyzing the data, researchers can use their professional knowledge to grasp the gist and finally arrive to a general conclusion. For example, it is not uncommon to see that many advertisements advocate the effort of products by using the result of survey such as eighty percent of respondents place high value of the product. At the same time, audiences also begin to theorize from the data cited in the advertisement and draw their own conclusion. Conversely, an advertisement without concrete data is not supposed to be convincing.

However, to theorize before one has data, that is to say, deductive theorizing is also a crucial tool employed by scientists. As a threshold problem, we should declare that deductive theorizing is not to theorize without any data but to theorize based on existing data which might not directly relevant to the current objectives. Scientific research is an exploration of unknown to find answers to our questions. If scientists do not start their research until they have got relevant data, the pace of science will be halted accordingly. Disciplines such as mathematics and astronomy, bald assumption serves to facilitate the development of research. One example aptly illustrates this point involved the hypothesis of DNA structure. Limited by facilities and technologies, James D Watson and Clark cannot use advanced microscope or other measures to observe the structure of DNA. All they got is relevant chemical and physical experiments. Merely based on these result of study, they assume that the structure of DNA is double helix. This seemingly dubious assumption was later proven to be an accurate one by following scientific experiments. In this respect, an provident hypothesis will tremendously accelerate the development of sciences.

Likewise, to some extent, an error hypothesis will also be beneficial. Take the hypothesis of DNA structure as example again. If the following experiments prove that this hypothesis is a wrong one, although people would be a little disappoint, however, wrong hypothesis also serves to inform people what is unworkable. That is to say, people would avoid squandering money and human resource on the study of double helix structure.

Further, we human being not only benefit from correct or wrong hypothesis but also stand to gain a lot of those hypothesis which has no answer yet. One striking example is Gold Bach's conjecture, the most famous puzzle in mathematics area. During the process of discovering the correctness of error of this hypothesis, in order to solve this puzzle, scientists create many new measures and technologies. Fortunately, these new technologies are not exclusive to Gold Bach's conjecture, most of them can be applied to other areas.

As shown above, it is a grave mistake to say that to theorize before one has data is wrong. Inductive theorizing and deductive theorizing are indisputable to scientific research. The former one make the academy more convincing and systematic and the latter one make it more creative.