it sounds like you're saying these professors keep gathering information until they go beyond what seems reasonable and continue until the reasonable isn't anymore
No. It's not enough to prove one's theory; you must also disprove the antithesis of one's theory. So finding 'enough information' that satisfies your requirements: here, all this says my theory is true--that's not good enough. It's common in the analytical sciences to ask whether there's an opposite of the argument (is it falsifiable) and whether that can be proven/argued. The same is done in theological dialectic, where one argues the thesis, and then the antithesis, and thereby proves the thesis via synthesis.
That's what I meant by going past the point of satisfactory to unsatisfactory: reach for the point of digging up contradictory information, and then study it as keenly as the supporting evidence. It often reveals as much about one's theory as that which supports your theory.
I've tested a lot of theories personally - so if they withstand every testing, if they hold true and never let me down, do I continue to question them for the rest of my life?
IMO? Yes.
How will you know beliefs continue to hold true if you don't ask the questions that will test those beliefs and make sure?
no subject
Date: 11 Mar 2005 08:37 pm (UTC)That's what I meant by going past the point of satisfactory to unsatisfactory: reach for the point of digging up contradictory information, and then study it as keenly as the supporting evidence. It often reveals as much about one's theory as that which supports your theory.
IMO? Yes.
How will you know beliefs continue to hold true if you don't ask the questions that will test those beliefs and make sure?