> snip...
>
> Each of those "students" of the Grand Canyon spend large amounts of time,
> money, and effort studying a small portion within the entire system. From
> the evidence gathered, these researchers form a hypothesis that explains
> what happened within their field area.
>
On the risk of cavil, in real life, is this true always ?
Quite a few of the material about researchs that I have read, showed the
team having a preconceived idea of what happened and then they proceeded
to go out and gather the evidence for their hypothesis to make it a thesis
or theory. In some cases the evidence proved their ideas wrong and they
look so dissapointed. In others, it didn't really match 100% their ideas
and they tried to find a 'fit'. And lastly, when the evidence matched
their hypothesis, they were ecstatic. Emotions normal to all of these
situations, I think.
That is why, imho, I believe when there appears to be conflicting views on
the same evidence or issue one needs to look a little deeper to find the
reason why. Stats and data is pure information and this alone isn't
sufficient.
Best Regards,
Dario Giraldo
Lacey, Washington