03-17-12: Sabai
Ideally, science works the way you have described. In fact, it does not always turn out that way because of special interests and political agendas, especially in the field of medicine.
I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind with POLITICALLY motivated SCIENTIFIC research, but I certainly agree with you about ECONOMICALLY motivated MEDICAL research. Plenty of examples of that. Like you, the corruption of medical research for profit drives me crazy.
From what I can tell, most of the questionable medical research is drug trial research conducted by physicians on behalf of drug companies. Unfortunately, medicine has become an entrepreneurial activity in this country, not just for drug companies, but for physicians. It is a truism that, where there is profit, there is corruption. The solution to that problem should be obvious.
Having said that, it bears repeating that physicians are NOT scientists, either in temperament or training or motivation.
RE: Temperament... The scientists I've known have been uniformly analytical, imaginative, and curious. The physicians have been largely impressionistic, concrete, and rigid. There are of course exceptions.
RE: Training... Scientists are taught how to systematically identify, evaluate, collect, record, analyze, and interpret evidence. While IDEALLY physicians would be taught the same thing, that is rarely the case, IME. Typically, physicians form an initial clinical impression and ignore contradictory evidence. I can't tell you how many times I've been misdiagnosed for this reason. The problem is traceable to their training in medical school, which is NOT the training of a scientist. Again, there are exceptions, which is why, when you find a good doctor, you hold on for dear life.
RE: Motivation... Of the dozen or so scientists I've known personally over the years, I don't know a single one who went into their field for the money. Given what most of them are paid, that would be laughable. In contrast, it is easy to form the impression that a significant fraction of medical doctors are motivated not by compassion or curiosity but by money. And again, where there is profit, there is corruption.
For these reasons, I think that conflating scientists with medical doctors is a mistake that leads to false generalizations.
Returning to audio...
03-17-12: Sabai
Bryon and Cbw723,
I find Paul Kaplan's comments (of Paul Kaplan Cable) on the importance of empirical evaluation relevant here. His views reflect my own views on this subject. I believe they also reflect on high end audio in general.
"...to make a really excellent cable, one must combine technical knowledge with tedious, empirical evaluation. Youve got to build, listen, make another with a single specific change, listen, evaluate, decide what characteristics may account for a given measureable and/or subjective change, and build yet another to hopefully verify. Repeat until done."
It seems to me that Kaplan is making a case for the value of OBSERVATION. That is perfectly reasonable, IMO. Careful observation is an important element in many activities where the goal is expanding the scope of knowledge.
Maybe this is what you meant earlier when you said that the "the empirical method and the scientific method are not the same at all." If what you mean by "the empirical method" is a method of careful observation, then I would say that the scientific method is a SUBSET of "the empirical method." So you would be right to say that they are not identical, but your way of phrasing it -- that they are "not the same at all" -- was perhaps a bit misleading.
In any case, we may not be in such disagreement after all. Which would be nice. This thread could use some more agreement. :-)
Bryon