[mikkergp]

Doesn’t the scientific method specifically say you can’t start with the data, you have to start with a hypothesis otherwise you are subject to all sorts of selection/hindsight biases. I mean you can start with data, but then you have to develop a hypothesis and use that to create an experiment that generates new data in order to reach a conclusion. It seems like that is the compromise the author is looking for, start with a good idea, then see if you can verify it with data.

[BeFlatXIII]

The scientific method as taught in K–12 schools is largely pablum. Often, the real process (beyond iterating off prior research) begins with collecting data, then noticing patterns to make a hypothesis to be tested with targeted data collection.

[musingsole]

A lot of this perspective depends on what point in time you choose as the start of the process. You can start with the hypothesis, or you can start with what gave rise to the hypothesis: exploration.

But, it's a layman's mistake to confuse the two and use it as a critique of the formalized scientific method.

Science bodies (like the NIH) explicitly forbid reuse or reinterpretation of data. An individual may use exploration as inspiration for a hypothesis...but for it grow into science out of curiosity requires new data generation from a carefully considered framework for the hypothesis.

[jpeloquin]

> Science bodies (like the NIH) explicitly forbid reuse or reinterpretation of data.

I think your main point is that collecting new data is necessary to test existing ideas. But reuse and reinterpretation of data is routine, e.g., in meta-analyses. It's not forbidden. You do have to disclose where the data came from.