SSkeptics’ failure to differentiate between Discovery Science, Developmental Science and Engineering is purposeful and methodical. But it by no means represents Science. The focus on Experimental Methodology only as representative of the entirety of the scientific method, simultaneously constrains all science to the control of a few in a lab, and excludes critical steps of early Development Science diligence which might serve to introduce unwanted evidence and hypotheses.
Discovery Science as an activity set is a substantially different venture than is the controlled directed methodical discipline of Developmental Science. Of course both domains involve disciplined measures, paths and processes; this is not in argument. More importantly however, is a seldom heralded principle on the part of SSkeptics that, Discovery Science approaches do not apply in the same way as when one is simply ‘developing’ enhancing tests and falsifications inside the domain set of a fully developed theory, constrained hypothesis domain, or study discipline. Discovering a new galaxy cluster for example, while exciting and serendipitous, is not what I am including under the definition of Discovery Science. Improving our knowledge of the celestial makeup of the heavens is not Discovery Science, but rather Developmental Science. Developmental Science relies on a shade different set of protocols and steps under the Scientific Method than does Discovery Science. They both employ the analytical feedback and peer review process, but the logical address of issues in an around default/simplest explanations, alternative explanations, the role of sponsors versus researchers and peers, null hypothesis development, falsification hierarchies, and threshold of escalation are different. String Theory investigation is not pursued in the same way as is sky-mapping. Both are science.
To the SSkeptic, only Developmental Science and Experimental Methodologies Exist
Now of course, in simple form this relationship is depicted in the chart to the right, one which I use in the labs I work with to help focus the technicians and scientists in a particular direction of effectiveness. I do not let the Developmentally skilled researchers have power over the Discovery researchers, as this is a common mistake in managing labs. In fact, in one lab I divided the entire organization into a development lab separate from a discovery lab, with separate professional directors. These two did not always get along either. But this was not a derivative of that relationship, rather an outcome of sound research practice. I ask them in addition to set aside Cultivation of Personal Power and Pet Prejudices. We do not filter data and ideas. We do not attack Sponsors of an idea. This removes a whole host of filtering and a priori errors which SSkeptics introduce into a Discovery Science process. Also, set aside for a moment the domain of Engineering, as Engineering relies on the analytical control and input sensitivity measures which are established in Advanced Development Science. In order for Engineering processes to be undertaken, there are certain aspects of Developmental Science which must be completed, otherwise one cannot apply the discovery for benefit or creation of a business. A benefit or business is ALWAYS derived from Engineering. Many notorious industry mistakes have been made by attempting to begin a benefit or business straight from the Science only (Carbon Sequestration Seeding comes to mind).
When a SSkeptic’s goal is cultivation of ignorance and personal power, they will pretend that the Scientific Method comprises only Steps 8 through 15 and that only the ‘Lab Method’ or the broader Experimental Methodology can be utilized to produce observational data or vet escalation therein. In an organization where groundbreaking Science results are paramount, the seasoned Scientist knows this approach to be fallacious.
The work of Sponsors is critical. This does not mean that the Sponsors have to or necessarily ‘believe’ the subject at hand.
When Results are the Goal and not Cultivation of Personal Power, THIS is the Scientific Method:
1. OBSERVATION
2. NECESSITY
3. AGGREGATION OF DATA
4. CONSTRUCT FORMULATION
5. SPONSORSHIP/PEER INPUT (Ockham’s Razor)
6. HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
7. PREDICTIVE TESTING
8. COMPETITIVE HYPOTHESIS FRAMING
9. FALSIFICATION TESTING
10. HYPOTHESIS MODIFICATION
11. FALSIFICATION TESTING/REPEATABILITY
12. THEORY FORMULATION/REFINEMENT
13. PEER REVIEW (Community Vetting)
14. PUBLISH
15. ACCEPTANCE
– – –
Discovery Science suffers from outsider beliefs, lack of sponsorship, lack of impetus, unclear falsifiability mandates, lack of mission and the false contention that no ad hoc ideas may be pursued
Adding data to a well understood falsification hierarchy, within mature knowledge and Peer Review frameworks, is an wholly different discipline than creating a market of data which will begin to describe a new explanatory framework altogether; one of which few have been aware or clearly understood. Man discovering objects under the ocean for the first time ever, is an wholly different discipline than using technology to locate submarines. Developmental Science is assumption based, simplest explanation, sponsorship, impetus, falsifiability and mission driven. NO ad hoc. Discovery Science suffers from beliefs, lack of sponsorship, lack of impetus, unclear falsifiability and lack of mission. Restriction of ad hoc pursuits is detrimental to Discovery Science and SSkeptics know this. Failure to highlight this is a popular method utilized by Deskeption Cabal members. SSkeptics, commonly employ tricks enabled by the awareness that the protocols utilized in Discovery Science are nurturing in ideology and do not employ the triage effect of those used in Developmental Science. They rely upon the layman’s, and many scientists’ lack of grasp of this distinguishing principle. SSkeptics will critique Discovery Data Collection and Discovery Investigation/Sponsor methodologies and refuse them validity, by applying Developmental Science protocol – which in effect filters data early enough in the process to kill an idea; failing to acknowledge the challenge incumbent on the Discovery Researcher. This portrays an aura of Science on the part of the SSkeptic, but is not Science at all.
SSkeptics will critique Discovery Data Collection and Discovery Investigation/Sponsor methodologies and refuse them validity, by applying Developmental Science protocol – which in effect filters data early enough in the process to kill an idea. This portrays an aura of Science, but is not Science at all.
Deskeption: Deny Discovery Science – Symptoms to Watch For:
Discover Science Denial is enacted via some of the following Pseudoscientific Declarations:
1. You are not pursuing science, but only your pet idea – This is false. A researcher can sponsor and research a single avenue of Discovery Science under the Scientific Method. This effort will involve falsification of competing classic explanations of course, but that does not mean he must fully investigate every alternative explanation first before he can pursue his idea. That is Developmental and not Discovery Science.
2. Bring me evidence once case at a time only – By dealing only in an anecdotal fashion, SSkeptics pull the trick of skipping data aggregation and confidence interval threshold tests which could substantiate a case for plurality (see Knowledge Filtering).
3. You have not considered nor tested for alternative explanations – This is a false enforcement. Study of the diligent alternative, the discovery alternative and many times, the one which can be eliminated through falsification most easily, takes precedence over assigning the simplest explanation, every time. Contending that the researcher should look for evidence supporting alternative explanations first or only, is not even Developmental Science, but rather a false form of induction called Promotification. This is a very common pseudoscience game played by SSkeptics seeking to squelch ideas and data.
4. No scientist seriously considers this a credible avenue of research – This is a false enforcement, as there are no scientists inside this subject (see What is Pseudoscience?).
5. We have no compelling need to look into this/the subject is a waste of my time – In the presence of Ockham’s Razor level data, this is an a priori conclusion and is pseudoscience.
6. Employment or Enforcement of a Null Hypothesis which cannot be tested for Falsification (see What Defines a Religion) – This is false because the Null Hypothesis is an untestable domain which cannot be falsified. It is not a construct. This is the pseudo-scientific method (see Proof by Non-Falsifiability).
7. You BELIEVE this – ‘belief’ is the battle-cry of the pseudo-skeptic. A Discovery Researcher, as a true skeptic, does not have to be dispassionate about pursuit of his idea. Indeed that passion drives him onward. Given sufficient data, and sufficient impetus, his efforts to focus on one idea and chain of data are valid, even though it may not match the same protocols inside of Developmental Research. It is his ability to tolerate his idea’s falsification which qualifies him as a true skeptic. Faker SSkeptics will never admit falsification of their pet ideas; but rather, will chose to enforce them without circumspection or conscience.
