Such a common aspect of a scientific mind is the ability to think outside the box to search for answers in un-likely places.
It is without a doubt that common sense leads us to believe that looking again and again at something isn't going to yield different results unless you stop looking the same way in the same place with the same reasons. In fact, all it can do is detail your analysis so redundantly that you finally notice the possibility of more extrapolation and thus finally do things a bit differently.
Why is it that this approach is deemed unscientific when it is the appeal to assumptive reasoning that is unscientific?
Have most researchers deemed the scholar as the researcher instead of the inventor? Isn't the inventor a scholar who is trying to test different theories through applied science? Isn't the scholar defined as the retainer of information and not the experimenting agent who uses knowledge as a basis to extrapolate more detail?
What basis do we have to say we don't bridge the gap of scholar and scientist together to make a researcher? Perhaps English defines too well the aspects in which any of those entails to not allow a well laid example using each separately.
I see the scholar as retaining any information that is useful in any area for the purpose of creating a library. I see the scientist as collecting data for the purpose of categorizing into a library for use. I see the researcher as using the library as a basis to create new knowledge to further build the existing categories of the library.
I see that some people argue the three are interchangeable but can not coincide in one act. I'm sure some people would argue that there is no need for distinction because all three work to the same goal even if by some way it is different means. I believe some would argue that each rely on each other for a process that completes an inadvertent goal that each rely on the other to begin their own respective process that circles back to the starting point.
Now check that out.. None are wrong in the assertion by reasonable deduction, all are useful in their process as far as ultimately helping themselves because it helps the others who then give needed help, yet all are very different in respects to origin of importance, manner of reasoning and ultimately conclusion.
It is without a doubt that common sense leads us to believe that looking again and again at something isn't going to yield different results unless you stop looking the same way in the same place with the same reasons. In fact, all it can do is detail your analysis so redundantly that you finally notice the possibility of more extrapolation and thus finally do things a bit differently.
Why is it that this approach is deemed unscientific when it is the appeal to assumptive reasoning that is unscientific?
Have most researchers deemed the scholar as the researcher instead of the inventor? Isn't the inventor a scholar who is trying to test different theories through applied science? Isn't the scholar defined as the retainer of information and not the experimenting agent who uses knowledge as a basis to extrapolate more detail?
What basis do we have to say we don't bridge the gap of scholar and scientist together to make a researcher? Perhaps English defines too well the aspects in which any of those entails to not allow a well laid example using each separately.
I see the scholar as retaining any information that is useful in any area for the purpose of creating a library. I see the scientist as collecting data for the purpose of categorizing into a library for use. I see the researcher as using the library as a basis to create new knowledge to further build the existing categories of the library.
I see that some people argue the three are interchangeable but can not coincide in one act. I'm sure some people would argue that there is no need for distinction because all three work to the same goal even if by some way it is different means. I believe some would argue that each rely on each other for a process that completes an inadvertent goal that each rely on the other to begin their own respective process that circles back to the starting point.
Now check that out.. None are wrong in the assertion by reasonable deduction, all are useful in their process as far as ultimately helping themselves because it helps the others who then give needed help, yet all are very different in respects to origin of importance, manner of reasoning and ultimately conclusion.