Just a few disconnected thoughts to throw into the pot.
What Ariel and Bob have so succinctly described is the Hypothetico-Deductive (H-D) model of research that was proposed in the 19th C and developed by Carl Popper and others. It stands in opposition to what had gone before, which was essentially an Inductive method. The latter basically consisted of finding as much data as possible about something and then drawing conclusions from those observations. What distinguished the H-D model from the inductive model is the testing of a specific prior hypothesis with the collection of data to test a particular question.
If the data we collect to test the hypothesis (i.e., the question being asked) does not refute it, then the hypothesis stands until such time someone comes along with a better set of data that negate it. Many times investigators are wedded to a certain hypothesis and are reluctant to let it go, even when the data suggest they should. After all, many reputations are built on proposing new hypotheses and defending them against all comers. The famous differences between Einstein and Nils Bohr concerning quantum mechanics, and the uncertain behavior of key components of matter, illustrate how even a great scientist and thinker like Einstein can be wrong and get stuck in old ideas.
Much of what we discuss on the Forums can be classed as inductive reasoning. We show a lot of pictures, draw analogies between different items, and try to construct a story to fit the observations. Many of our discussions raise more questions than they answer. Such questions could be considered the genesis of hypotheses, but we lack the ability to test those ideas in a meaningful manner. Designing a set of actions (experiments) to test an hypothesis effectively can be difficult and in some cases impossible. Bob has already alluded to the difficulties of historical research.
Social scientists (as distinct from physical or biomedical scientists) encounter these problems frequently in their research. Carefully controlled studies with well defined groups are difficult when dealing with ordinary human beings going about their lives. Anthropologists, ethnologists, sociologists, behavioral scientists, etc. have to be creative in designing studies to test their hypotheses. In many ways, their job is harder than physical and biomedical researchers.
Studying the history and use of weapons seems more akin to social sciences than the physical or biomedical sciences, especially when we consider the culture of the populations using these weapons. One of the key elements of understanding the use and place of weapons within a culture necessarily draws on an understanding of ethnography and sociology within the native population. People within those groups rightly get upset with westerners who try to draw conclusions without carefully involving the groups under study. Techniques for obtaining information from such groups does not necessarily involve a structured formal questionnaire, but rather loosely structured interviews with key informants and other members of the community. All communications need to be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, and so on.
Such techniques are often derided by "hard scientists" as being empirical and poorly controlled, with a high likelihood of bias. There may be some truth to that. However, the types of rigor and control that are used by many physical and biomedical scientists are often not feasible for the social scientist—they can only use the tools they have.
What does this have to do with the question at hand? Mahratt proposed in another thread that one could use old pictures, drawings, and other art works to define who wore, and presumably used, the khanjarli. Jim provided some clues based on historical records for where to look, and we would expect to see some pictorial evidence to support his research. What we have is Jim creating an hypothesis that can be tested by searching for photographic or artistic evidence in support of that.
That's how the H-D method works.
|