So here I shall embrace arrogance because otherwise, I would never write this. I must be willing to be wrong, or I shall never be original, but I must believe myself to be right, or I shall never be willing to share it.
(though I may edit the arrogance out before posting this, I still care too much about how people see me.)
I never liked the scientific method. At least as I originally learned it, a fault in my education maybe, but it is so. My dislike stems from one point alone, the first step of scientific discovery, the need for a hypothesis. I will not claim that the scientific method is a bad thing; it is a tool, an incredibly useful tool, but a tool nonetheless. The biggest thing that bugs me is that it is treated as the only tool, that without it, you cannot perform science. Without declaring a hypothesis, without declaring a goal, declaring what we do not know, is that what is needed to discover truth?
Despite my disposition towards the scientific method, I still see myself as a scientifically minded individual, but for me, the simple fact is that we don’t know what it is that we don’t know. And by deciding on a hypothesis, we set goalposts, and we limit our results to; this hypothesis is correct, it is false, and we do not know. Was I to suggest that we move the goalposts that we in lacking understanding of the truth, attempt to observe events in a controlled environment or matter, the first question I would need to ask would be why? What am I attempting to discover? But would I be given the resources to move forward if I would state that I do not know?
If I was I to compose and collect a series test, some silly most seemingly meaningless, and to put them in front of randomly collected individuals, using a large sample size. If I was to collect those tests (tests such as my “connection machine test”), then were I to look for patterns in the test results and try to create measures and discover what they mean. Would that be scientific?
Alas, I do not know, maybe we need hypotheses in order to create proofs. And I simply am afraid of deciding on a measure. My personal distaste should not stand in the way of discovery, and I still lack the knowledge and understanding to complete this point.
So let me put together a hypothesis here, “We can learn more from failing to prove obvious hypotheses than from succeeding to prove them.” But what we will learn, I do not know.
I apologize if you expected more here I did too. It took a lot out of me to put even this out here so I hope you find something in it. Or at least explain to me how I am wrong because I hope I am.