Hacker News Reader

You don't need a preexisting theory though, you just need to lack one that explains the results of an experiment

Why would someone do an experiment without a theory to test? How would they know that a particular result was interesting without a theory about the expected result?

Because rubbing your chin doesn't accomplish anything, messing around with stuff does.

There are practically infinite combinations of things to mess around with. Which stuff do scientists choose to mess around with and why?

Ah, I see. You mean we need some (implicit) theory to even detect what is interesting about a result.

Let’s say you measure a particle going c*2. Without theory you wouldn’t even notice this.

Is that your point?

Not really. I don’t have my own theories on how most things work but I can recognise patterns that fall out of the norm

so your theory is “things have predictable patterns” or “the future will be like the past”