6 ms·
Geologist here. This is super-important for hypothesis science. At the same time, I think one of the biggest inaccuracies in the public perception of science (
by cbkeller 8y ago
Geologist here. This is super-important for hypothesis science.
At the same time, I think one of the biggest inaccuracies in the public perception of science (and one of my pet peeves) is the idea that all science is hypothesis science. It turns out there's also still plenty of discovery science to be done -- and while it's less common than it was 100 or 200 years ago, it's quite important!
In geology, this often quite literally takes the form of a blank space on the map -- there are plenty of unmapped quadrangles on the geologic map of the world at 1:24,000 and finer scales, and the USGS will pay you just to learn how to fill them in [1].
This is one of the few subjects on which the misinformation is so pervasive that even the wikipedia article [2] is substantially inaccurate (I blame the overly-simplified formulation of the scientific method that most of us are first exposed to in elementary school). The one part that you can correctly infer from the wp article though, is that discovery science is having a bit of a resurgence recently thanks to the proliferation and reuse of large datasets.
[1] https://ncgmp.usgs.gov/about/edmap.html https://ncgmp.usgs.gov/about/edmap.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_science
One of the simplest distinguishing characteristics is that there's no such thing as a negative result in discovery science: if you're mapping a blank area, whatever you find will be something we didn't know before.
- SubiculumCode 8y agoI think neuroscience is much like exploration. You can make hypotheses, but we barely know what is going on, so the hypotheses aren't really well grounded. Find hats there, publish the result, build the map, so to speak, so that future scientists can make more informed hypotheses.
- cbkeller 8y agoYeah. In areas where we know so little that it's hard to make informed hypotheses, there's probably a substantial component of discovery science. It's a bit of a yin-yang situation IMO: discovery science often leads to testable hypotheses for future work, and things we learn from hypothesis-testing can open up new avenues for discovery
- tgb 8y agoGenetics too. RNA sequencing data is almost exclusively considered exploratory and is expected to be replicated at least technically (by using the same biological samples for qPCR to measure a small number of genes) but also biologically with novel samples and experiments.
- Balgair 8y agoOh man, in neuro, discovery-centric science is really controversial. Not the findings themselves, but the funding. If you propose to just stain/viral-inject some tissue, electro-physiologically map some connections, etc, you'll just get back comments that say 'fishing expedition'. Maybe you can do this with NIH when you propose to contrast it with diseased tissues, but even then, it's unlikely (Well, less likely than the 'normal' low rate of proposals being funded).
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoI'm appalled. That fundamental science is called 'a fishing expedition' in a derogatory way, says whole volumes about how academia is failing.
- robotresearcher 8y agoDon’t be appalled. This is not a failure. There are limited funds. Hypothesis driven work is thought to be more probably productive. If you were handing out the funding, assuming equally good teams, do you choose the work that targets Parkinson’s mechanisms or the functional map of a less-explored bit of CNS? We are doing basic exploration as well. We are just prioritizing targeted work in a resource constrained environment.
- Balgair 8y agoMaaaaybe. Truth be told, it's all about networking. Grants go to the friends of the reviewers more so than to those deemed most deserving [0]. Granted, it's really hard to read a bunch of proposals and determine whose is 'most' deserving. So reviewers act like the humans they are and give the grants to their friends. [0]Total anecdata, I have no source for this.
- robotresearcher 8y agoI don't review grants for my friends. This is a strong community norm. It's unethical to do so. This causes a shortage of qualified reviewers, but that's less of a moral hazard than conflicts of interest.
- stephengillie 8y agoOne of the most painful parts of Economics is how many mathematicians there are in the field. They treat discovery science as hypothesis science, and try to force reality fit their model - instead of gathering data about the real world first. Thus, we get models of Marginal Demand that don't include "not having enough money to buy something". Edit: if this comment is unhelpful, please suggest an update.
- angrow 8y agoI find it helpful, or at least informative, but since it confirms the model I already had of the field my opinion may not be trustworthy.
- antidesitter 8y ago> Thus, we get models of Marginal Demand that don't include "not having enough money to buy something". Which models?
- stephengillie 8y agoMost of them, especially those developed before the 2000s.
- antidesitter 8y agoCan you be more specific? “Not having enough money to buy something” sounds like a pretty important factor to miss.