Re: [Phys-L] how research is done : exploring a maze using only local information

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 09/14/2015 10:10 AM, Joseph Bellina wrote:

> There are two observations that can be made about the process of
> doing science.  

> One is that all theories are underdetermined,

Agreed.

> and the other is that all experiments are theory laden. 

Agreed.

>  It is the latter
> that provides the flaw in your model in the sense that, unless as I
> said I missed it, there is no underlying theory to guide my
> decisions, good or bad, it is rather a random walk, which I don’t
> think is really how science is done.

That is an excellent point we should discuss.  See below.

On 09/14/2015 10:39 AM, rjensen@ualberta.ca made a similar point:

> > I prefer a "lost in the woods" analogy.

That's an excellent analogy.  The maze is intended to touch on all
the same points.  In particular, that's why I do *not* show an
overview of the maze.  I want to convey the feeling of being lost.

> John's maze analogy is good, but limited. The biggest limitations I
> > see is that, at every juncture, there are only two possible pathways
> > (or going backwards), and every pathway is equally 'good'.

You guys raise a good point.  Two responses:

  a) In my previous writeup, the discussion of this point was mostly
   missing and partly wrong.  My bad.  Sorry.

  b) However, the maze is a somewhat better model of reality than
   you give it credit for.  I insist that some decisions in the maze
   are *not* 50/50 coin-toss decisions.  At some crucial points there
   is theoretical guidance, which the wise maze-solver will bring to
   bear.

   Just now I added a section that discusses how this works:
      https://www.av8n.com/physics/research-maze.htm#sec-general