Experimental Research Argument by Examining Einstein\'s Statement

Experimental Research Argument

By examining Einstein's statement on research - "if we knew what we were doing, It would not be called research, would it?" - one can see that he means research is designed as a way to learn and experiment. It is used to find things out and discover things, which is why people spend so much time on it. They do not always know what they are doing, many believe, but they know what they want to discover. They have to use various methods to find what they want to know, and sometimes there is a great deal of trial and error involved in finding the answer to the question. Einstein believed that there were many ways in which people could discover the world around them, and it was clear by his life's work that he was dedicated to doing all he could to advance science and humanity in such a way that it would be beneficial for the entire world (Cooperstock, 2009). But, is his argument that people who research really do not know what they are doing accurate? Did Einstein mean this, and did he really think that researchers did not understand what they were doing as they conducted their research?

There is a counter argument to this opinion. While people use research to discover things, the idea that they do not know what they are doing is not necessarily a logical one. This is one of the things that Einstein may have said in jest, or only as a partial truth. It is also possible that the quote was originally part of something much longer, and that it was taken out of context. Even if Einstein meant it exactly as stated, was he correct? It is possible for individuals to not know what they are doing when they begin research, but how logical is it that they will not figure out what they are doing as they go along? The truth of the matter seems to be that researchers do, indeed, know what they are doing (Hinkelmann & Kempthorne, 2008). They have to have some basic idea of what they want to study and what they want to discover, or they would not be able to plan out their studies. They would have no idea how to go about looking for things, and that is not the case. Most research studies are carefully planned (Hinkelmann & Kempthorne, 2008).

Facts are thought to come from experimental research, but do they really come from that? Is it possible that they come from what is already known? That would depend on what a person considers to be a fact. Facts are provable, but what is proof? Scientific proof is not the same as religious proof, for example - meaning that not all researchers will see proof the same way (Freedman, 2009). Many also confuse correlation with causation, in that they assume A+B=C when that may not be the case. In reality, A and B. might have only been in the same area, and it may be D+E that actually equal C. Researchers have to know what they are looking for, and they have to know what they basically expect to find and how to find it (Freedman, 2009). They really are not locating new facts with experimental research. They are taking what they already believe to be true and verifying that it is fact (Kupelis & Kuhn, 2007). That is still very important, but it is not the same, and should not be considered the same, as "making" new facts.