Sorry folks - I was going to bow out of this debate, but Jesper's
message has provoked a reaction, specifically about Darwin's Galapagos
work. How convincing would Darwin have been had he not revealed his
methods? The problem with his Galapagos work is that the working
methods are very badly recorded. Even the place of collection of many
of the famed finches was not clear, let alone the strategy for
collection. It took David Lack's persistent and careful research in the
mid-20th century to sort out the muddle, and to show the real value of
what Darwin had observed. However, I certainly agree with Jesper that
creativity, especially when applied to new working methods, is a
valuable thing. And that is definitely my last word on the subject.
Terry O'Connor
"Jesper Sørensen Østergaard" wrote:
>
> I agree that any method or rule used must be clearly
> stated, explained and illuminated, but they should not
> be too rigerous, and creativity is a good thing and
> very inventive, for improving methods.
> If methods are not revealed I think all work for a
> report is simply lost, regardless of how many pages of
> ´data´ are included.
> What is this with unfixedrules; is it a kind of
> anti-methodism or to try clouding ones work, making it
> very mysterious for other people to compare a site or
> a set of data. Publishing data without illuminating
> methods and revealing how you have been working,
> forces other zooarchaeologists to revisit the site/the
> material, and work everything through again.
> Think of this; despite the religious odds how
> convincing would Darwin have been, if he choose not to
> reveal his methods - just conjecture - lets revisit
> Galapagos Islands again.
>
> Cheers, and X-Mas and happy new year.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
> your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
> or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
|