Integration of the google maps feature with the human brain.Researching tangents do lead to something fun!
Well at least with me.
Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up
Kevin Dunbar is a researcher who studies how scientists study things — how they fail and succeed. In the early 1990s, he began an unprecedented research project: observing four biochemistry labs at Stanford University. Philosophers have long theorized about how science happens, but Dunbar wanted to get beyond theory. He wasn’t satisfied with abstract models of the scientific method — that seven-step process we teach schoolkids before the science fair — or the dogmatic faith scientists place in logic and objectivity. Dunbar knew that scientists often don’t think the way the textbooks say they are supposed to. He suspected that all those philosophers of science — from Aristotle to Karl Popper — had missed something important about what goes on in the lab. (As Richard Feynman famously quipped, “Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”) So Dunbar decided to launch an “in vivo” investigation, attempting to learn from the messiness of real experiments.
( Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up -via Wired)
A overall interesting article of a more in-depth view of the simple scientific method we all learned in middle school. Failure isn’t word taken lightly in research. Telling a researcher they’re theory is wrong is like taunting a bull with a red cape and if so be ready to get rammed. I mean what researcher wouldn’t want to blame the method which introduces foreign outliner data that doesn’t give the answer we expect. Often this is the type of data usually overlooked because it’s outcome was something unexpected or completely different.
I‘d blame it on a bad protein or maybe even a poor sample size.
Psh, Who are you to tell me I can’t reject my null hypothesis!
