Why I really don't enjoy the scientific method
I like original work and reasearch, independent and logic-oriented work in the field programming. It's a field of great and interesting discoveries - just take a look at what some indie developers archieved and strife for. Anyway, if you have to create something purely using the scientific method, your chances to just successfully dump your results will be astronomically low. Personally, I also build up from a problem with a well-analyzed situation. Then I logically advance to the most suitable solution with some optimization taken here and there. Often I arrive at the best solution this way unless it's a very complicated base situation (in which case' you'll have too much to take into consideration). But on a scientific base? Well, first off you'll have to read everything that exist just to make sure your worthy of state-of-art thinking (hohoho). Then you can attempt to take closer look at your problem while applying the things you learned before. Quote something here, do foot notes there - there's obviously no way the author can do this all on it's own! He's not even allowed and intensive science based study has to be done before! Well, that's the way a lot lecturers I know see it - especially the more theoretic and less hands-on ones. They don't even think about original work and research, alternative ways of achieving knowledge or whatever. You only way to justify your work is do it bottom-up with a lot of foot notes in the more theoretical part and step-by-step analysis/buildup for everything else. Geez, I hope my prof's is a bit more open to it than others. Gladly, my bachelor thesis is more about implementing, searching and designing a suitable subset of techniques rather than proving. Even better, I get to do an analysis of my implementation so any assumption I make in the design part will have a result later on. Hmmm, I think I'm worrying too much about it. Awesome enough that I can quote my own documentation - take that, science!