just depends on what you're interested in, i guess. i got tired of the whole, "this didn't work the last 42 times we tried this, but i have a good feeling about this time" mentality of a lot of it. I'm not saying it's not effective, but someone else can do it. :lol:
I can see that, yeah. I suppose the way I see it is you've just got to know when youre barking up the right tree I suppose and make intelligent adjustments to your methodology rather than beat a dead horse and just repeat endlessly - if your supporting theory is sound (as far as you know; youre pretty sure your experiment has the flaws) and youre looking for falsification or verification but you cant quite get the method of the experiment right or get everything you need to control under control, then its frustrating, but I dont find it onerous to muddle along with that - its a challenge I rather enjoy. Its also a HUGE part of any 'day job' experimental science - reality bites; you take your pristine little hypothesis and your platonic form of a test of it to an actual lab and start cobbling stuff together and a million and one things you never expected conspire to $%&# it all up. But I like it :lol:
Sifting through reams of data to find something I'm not even sure is there to be found on the other hand is a pain I can do without.
Wait
I do that most days at work :lol: (I rarely get the opportunity to do much hands-on real empirical stuff - most of my work, alas, is physics-guided statistics and $%&#ing modelling...well being "technical lead" for a team of modellers who are all too often in need of education that their pretty game of 1s and 0s ISNT REALITY....anyway, I digress....deep breaths....and relax
