No, not the field of knowledge, but the work itself. From my observations, it seems like experiments are nothing more than trial and error. Chemists would try on thousands if not millions of different compounds at random until they find one that came close to the results that they desire.
It's like solving a complex calculus equation (assuming the answer is a positive integer) by picking one number, checking the equation, then pick the next number and checking again until you get to the number that fits.
I, someone who loves solving problems without resorting to 'intelligent guessing' or trial-and-error, feels that becoming a scientists is a mistake. I should become a computer programmer instead.
What do you think?
2007-02-26 13:49:38 · 6 answers · asked by Who_am_i 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
I think that if we always found the answer to everything on the first try our life's would be boring and to calculated. trial and error is needed so we can learn of all the things not to do in order to figure something out. And I totally think you should you should be in a field that you will enjoy learning and growing in, not something you think is dumb.
2007-02-26 14:09:12 · answer #1 · answered by ANGELA S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In soil mechanics, scinetific experiments are a mixture of design and observation. In the design partk you try to identify what you know for sure - which is not always easy - and you try to figure out what quaetion you want answered. Then you design an experiment which will answer that specific question. It's actually a very skilful thing to do to design experiemts.
In chemistry, I guess that a similar thing applies. You make a hypothesis about what mifght reach with what, based on previous knowledge, then you test it out.
2007-02-26 21:59:57 · answer #2 · answered by Always Hopeful 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without trial and error, there would be no results!
Why do you think a doctor's surgery is called a practice?
2007-03-02 14:21:20 · answer #3 · answered by replycs 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's wrong. You need to work with smart scientists to see how they work. There's a method to the madness - not blind guesswork. Besides, it's too expensive to do science that way.
2007-02-26 21:55:25 · answer #4 · answered by JiveSly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are speaking of the old inductive method. Google " Hypothtico-deductive method ".
2007-02-26 22:42:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure. Do what you want.
2007-02-26 21:55:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋