5 ms·
> "I went out and asked all my neuroscientist friends, 'If I do this in an adult monkey, will this give them color vision?' " Neitz says. "And everyone said, 'A
by 10ren 17y ago
> "I went out and asked all my neuroscientist friends, 'If I do this in an adult monkey, will this give them color vision?' " Neitz says. "And everyone said, 'Absolutely not.' "
> Neitz and his team tried the experiment anyway.
Doing the experiment is empiricism; relying on a conceptual theory is rationalism. Theory is effective for predicting the logical consequences of what is already known; it cannot predict anything else. Whereas empiricism can discover things which are not dreamed of by a particular theory.
Even the famous examples of rationalism, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, and Maxwell's equations which predicted radio waves, were based on empirical observations: that the speed of light appears to be constant in all directions (inconsistent with an ether); and Faraday's observation that a magnetic field can affect the polarization of light, respectively.
Excessive rationalism is popular in software researchers, but it is not appropriate for any software that interacts with reality - as all useful software does.
- scott_s 17y agoI think you're suggesting a dichotomy where none exists. The scientific method depends on both.
- 10ren 17y agoWhen people say "absolutely not", as here, theory attempts to exclude experiment. It's quite common. I agree both are necessary for healthy science.
- scott_s 17y agoI don't think people mean "Don't even try" when they say "absolutely not." It's a colloquial expression, not a scientific expression.
- 10ren 17y agoThe article has more on this issue than I have quoted. I don't know exactly what those individuals meant by "absolutely not", however I'm not seeing a conflict between individuals, but between attitudes (which also exists within an individual.) When conducting research, individuals vary in their attachment to theory; even within the one researcher, there are conflicting tendencies to follow theory or to test it. I say tendencies, because there isn't a strictly rational way to know when to begin or stop a particular line of experiments. It is, by nature, unknown. When established theory says that something definitely won't work, one is less encouraged to try the experiment. Therefore I think it's important to celebrate each new discovery - especially when it undermines a theory. I think you have misinterpreted my comments, especially the longer one.