In writing the previous essay, the title itself was a desired goal. I expected the results to be favourable. From the simplest data collected, it seemed to be aligned. Extensive research provided context to the the obvious hypothesis. The surrounding influences and effects would provide more historical information. Displaying honest continuity. Demonstrating the linear connection between the ideas and the events. Oh how wrong I was. With all the data collected and yet the conclusion was off.
What ended up being an ironclad theory was falsified in the end. Popper was correct in his analysis. The theory was proven to be untrue despite the overwhelming contextual relation. The hours of research flushed down the toilet with realisation of its falsity. Misconstrued notions unveiled their truth. Recognising the truth behind the hopeful aspiration. So close yet so far. All the historical analysis pointed to its verification but it didn’t. It was skewing statistics to fit an agenda. It was displaying a counterfactual for its own correction. It didn’t line up. It was never supposed to. Only the arrogant believe their theories to be ironclad. The genuine scientist is cautious of his proposals. It is possible to be correct and possible to be incorrect. It is a matter of experimentation to figure out the truth.
Treating a hypothesis is a shot in the dark. A clever thought mixed with assurance. This could be true, let us see if it is. It is the research that demonstrates the experimented hope. Does this fall in line with the proposal? Does it match up? In my case it didn’t. The hypothesis was personally assured success yet in the end, it only proved the improbability of scientific research. A lesson in its own right. Clever thoughts do not always mean correctness. At times these ideas are fleeting abstracts to be left that way. They seem identical but they are sorely mistaken. It fails to mesh with the preconceived notion. It seems odd but yet also clarified. The hypothesis engenders the individual to live up to his theory. Do not just state but prove. It calculates the human engagement with his own line of thinking. Taking his theory seriously. Being responsible for his claims. Galileo stood against the dismissing authorities. Proving his conclusions were correct.
Research is a validation technique but it also aids in refining misunderstood notions. An experiment proven false is due to the incompatibility between the two. The historical event was misunderstood. The historical canon does not link up because the former event was misunderstood. The hypothesis fell flat because the control group was not controlled. The control group was rogue. Instead of boy participants it was filled with girls. The theory was overturned due to a lack of comprehension. Yet the research demonstrated this. With the final look inward, the scientist recognises that his problem is his own mishap. He failed to set up the control group adequately. It was not a variable gone awry but his own incompetence that messed up the chain of command. Then again, it also demonstrated that his research needed to be brushed up. A moment of humility and recognition of his fault with a renewed vision for the next project.
The mistake was only realised in the final moments. Putting all the pieces together it was up to the final straw to tie it all together. Yet in that moment he realised that he had only looked at two examples from the control group. The control group was more extensive than he imagined. While some of his theory held up, his main point was overturned. His previous knowledge that he took for granted had now blown back in his face. Knowledgable of the trends that he screwed up big time. All the adequate research surrounded the control group. The control group was the only misinformation. The variables were on point but not the original seminal signifier. Coming full circle unwinded much of his reasoning. The events held their ground but their prowess decreases tremendously. Their purpose undermined. They no longer held the prestige or the chain that was intended. The chain was bruised. Only fixed with a new conclusion. Revamping the control group to a new order. With a new clear hypothesis.
A lesson in disguise. Never take anything for granted. The control group must be checked on. Do research on the control group before moving onto the other variables. The surrounding context may be genuine but if it is not aligned with the control group it means nothings. It ends up being good history without a purpose. Cool facts to know without the punch. An English breakfast without the sausages. A key piece of the puzzle is missing. The centrepiece to complete the puzzle is absent. A new hypothesis must engage to bind it all together. A way of demonstrating purpose for the elongated historical venting. More than simply observing history. Providing a telos to the overgrown context. A commercial with a point at the end. Not sitting through a boring lecture of genealogical naming but of building toward a conclusion. Always double check your sources.
No comments:
Post a Comment