Question: Evaluate how disproving your own theory could make you a better scientist.

Mark Hill answered on 17 Mar 2011:

Hello Bones,

I have answered other questions to students on the subject of theories in my role, explaining that I work from a ‘grounded theory’ perspective (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I look at the evidence and allow it to lead my investigation. I have to work from the empirical and physical evidence angle, without being unduly influenced by the witness testimony. Witness evidence is notoriously vulnerable to the logic of the human brain, in trying to make sense of events and in filling in the gaps of an event only partly witnessed. This is not to say that they are necessarily lying, but that they are giving honestly held beliefs that the human brain has superimposed onto their memories.

So, I don’t set out with a theory led investigation, rather a fact finding mission and holistic, or all encompassing, investigation.

I can see how disproving of theories assists in the evolution of a scientific mind and scientific processes, but I don’t believe that I can directly apply that question to my discipline. Detectives often apply a theory, or hypothesis based angle to investigations, but they deal more directly with the witnesses and participants in a crime, rather than physical evidence collection, examination and interpretation.

In my study research, for my Masters and with my current projects, I do have theories and hypotheses. The science is in challenging them and, from those results, either showing them to be inaccurate, or wrong, or correct. In the latter instance, the tests that are applied, especially the statistical tests for statistical significance, serve to make the theories more robust. A good and informed question, at the heart of scientific study.
Thanks.
Mark.