Something I've repeatedly found useful is that when debugging and you have a conjecture, not only look for evidence that a correlation/causation is present; but also look for evidence that it isn't.
Doing a very quick A/B test helps too.
Doing a very quick A/B test helps too.
In my opinion, the absolute, utter core essence of science can be expressed simply as "Always be trying to prove yourself wrong." The human brain is extremely biased in the other direction, and it's darned good at proving itself correct. It can prove itself correct in absurdly powerful ways. Always be fighting it, always be looking for ways to prove yourself wrong. If you do it seriously, things like "the scientific method" will naturally fall out of your serious attempts and need not be surrounded by near-worship, whereas no amount of worshipfully-following a checklist of the "scientific method" without the true effort to prove yourself wrong will produce truth; the human brain is far more powerful than the "scientific method" or any such static methodology.
I have deliberately left the word 'theory' out of this post. This scientific mindset beyond that into engineering and any number of day-to-day activities.
Insanity!
I agree with you for the most part. But there's a line. When it starts to destroy your personal identity and sense of self, you've crossed that line. Sometimes it's just better to be right and trust yourself.
Or not. That's zen, I think. Trying to have so much information about everything that you wind up overloading yourself with it and can't make heads or tails of it, because in every simple truth exists an infinite proof. Analysis paralysis!
Alas, if you're looking for an excuse to tie either yourself or me up in some sophomoric philosophical conundrum, this doesn't do it. But there's no lack of such things if you look, so don't be disappointed. Keep on trucking. May I suggest Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid if you would like the industrial strength version rope, err, braid to tie yourself in?
But I'm sure there are two ways to respond to my comment: pretend you know what you are talking about, or admit you could be wrong and care to engage me in a real conversation. I've been down the same road hundreds of times on the internet, and it is hard to find people to talk to about things and meet in some kind of scientific, logical middle. But if that's not your thing, oesn't bother me if all you came here for was to prove yourself right about the noble ethics of your science. At least I'm no longer trapping my mind in a paradox of it's own creation. (Or am I? I never really know).
Logic is very different from science, that's all I have to say. Rigor is for precision, not discovery.
Considering the entire rest of your message consists of you essentially trying to lord over me whatever superiority you seem to think you have, and not missing an opportunity to slide a snide comment in, which I'd also observe is consistent with your original post, I've come to the conclusion that the rest of your post belies this claim. You're being abrasive and abusive while trying to pretend to be so much more open minded.
No sale. I recognize that tactic and refuse to engage with it. I'm sticking with my original assessment; you're being too sophomoric to engage with, and I reject your attempts to psychology me into engaging with you in the presupposed frame of your superiority.
I don't like psychology.
But then there are all the ways people screw up A/B tests...