"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data." Please review this essay

[ga4r5sh]

"It is a grave mistake to theorize before one has data."


It is not wrong to theorize before one has data.What is a grave mistake though is disregarding the data once they have been obtained and not reviewing the theories in the new light of the additional data.

Making a theory invloves some steps. We use available data , make some logical assumptions based on our knowledge and experience and then do some

guesswork or prediction. This is theorizing in its barest essentials. It is helpful to think of the detection as a goodexample.A detective arrive at a crime scene ,uses available clues and then spins some theories tentatively explaining the crime. He then tests these theories against each other by searching for more clues and leads.In the process he is just trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle by fitting the disparate pieces(clues) together.

Theorizing gives the mind some directions to work on.In the presence of new data it is imperative to revise these theories or make new ones. This is the way the academic world forges its way ahead. Think of a physicist. When J J Thompson discovered the electron, several theories were put forward to explain the internal structure of the atom. Each of these models were tested by experiments. Eventually one model passed a 'touchstone test' devised by Sir Ernest Rutherford.Theorizing forged the way ahead for Physics as it still does today.


But there are some cases where it is absolutely essential to have copious amount of data before theorizing.
Some magazines and news channels make theories padded up by data from statistical surveys. If the representative sample is too small or too specific, making blanket statements about the general mood of a larger class of people is a capital error. Consider the case of exit polls which are widely used to forecast the outcome of a national level election. Exit poll data gathered only from few specific states are of little use in making predictions. Massive amounts of data representative of the general mood help in analysing correctly the different facets of the election. Without such data armchair reasoning---which is often subjected to individual bias---- can lead to wrong theories.
In the court room the judge has to depend on the information presented to him to pronounce judgement. He cannot make assumptions himself
and hypothesize about the case.That work is left to the lawyers He has to work with data, weigh one fact with another and then make a decision.
It would be a travesty of justice if we were all subjected to the whims and biases of the judges.


We have the notorious example of Aristotle who made many blanket statements without testing their validity.He often theorized without data. He theorized that men have more teeth than women without taking the pains of counting his own teeth and that of Mrs.Aristotle.The sun goes around the Earth said some and that the Earth was flat.Many future generations believed many of such theories without taking the pains to test their veracity .Such 'facts' were taken for granted.
It took the guts of Galileo, Copernicus and many others to devise experiments to debunk the coeval dogmas.

In summary I believe it is necessary to make theories even if we know certain data are missing. But it imperative to remember that theories have expiry

dates.They should constantly be revised in the light of new information.