[tdehnel]

“That’s funny…” implies you had a pre existing theory about how it was supposed to work.

[SanderNL]

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?

[jack_riminton]

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

[tdehnel]

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

[overboard2]

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

[tdehnel]

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?

[foodjinn]

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

[tdehnel]

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