Could Sherlock Holmes Have Been a Good Geologist?/Conclusions and Recommendations

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Given the importance of a correct observation for the verification of an hypothesis and for the development of the scientific ideas, it is necessary to pay attention to the collection and conservation of the primary documentation.

Before beginning an observation, it is very useful to have an idea or objective defined. This will allow us to verify the accuracy or incongruity of our initial hypothesis, with only some key observations. Also is important to remember that the observation must be selective and interpretive, to become scientific.

Don't "tie" yourself to a hypothesis. It is the hypothesis which must adapt to the facts and not the other way around.

Since observations by themselves are almost never a source of sure and univocal information, it is always advisable to process statistically the obtained results. The calculations proposed in this paper are usually sufficient for the preliminary elaboration of any assemblage of geological measurements.

The practical application of these recommendations, plus a constant search of improvement based in the comparison and the critic analysis of previous observations (you’re own or someone else's) will soon allow you to improve the quality of your observations.

As for the codification of the information, it is recommended chiefly when the studied system is well known and when the observations are accomplished only at independent points, and we assume that among both points does not exist meaningful differences. If so, we recommend establishing a codification system to save time and to increase the interpretive quality of the observations. We are sure that Sherlock Holmes has done it in that way... if he has been a geologist!!!