Scientific Inquiry

At its core AAPharmaSyn is a science company driven by pursuit of knowledge to the benefit of our clients. We are motivated and energized by the conceptual theater that houses pursuit of scientific truths and the primacy of empirical evidence to test hypothesis and subject results to peer review. We find it enormously rewarding to be able to produce a generalizable theory that encapsulates a wide range of observations. Herein we discuss general attributes of scientific inquiry that encompass our approach to solving a novel question with ambiguous link to established conceptual schemes. Due to the nature of our work we will refrain from commenting on social sciences and limit our scope to physical and life sciences.

Based on our experience the scientific inquiry requires incorporation of the empirically verifiable questions, direct investigation of the questions of interest and reproducible and generalizable results. These elements constitute a framework for scientific inquiry resulting in formulation of theories that have predictive, explanatory and operatory powers.

Empirically Verifiable Questions

Asking informed question is critical to making insightful discoveries. If questions do not lead to multiple conjectures that need to be tested and explored much knowledge is unlikely to be gained. On the other side of the sliding scale if the questions are too broad and contain ill-defined themes such as “What is the nature of the Universe” they will invariably lead to highly involved discussion without making discernable progress on the question that generated the discussion in the first place. Thus, a good scientific question allows multiple hypothesis to be tested and is rooted in empirical observation that can be reproduced on command. When we engage in discovery research, we are frequently asking what determinants are causing a specific outcome and how these determinants interact to produce desired result. To that end making an intriguing observation provides us with an inspiration to dig deeper.

Direct Investigation of the Questions is Possible

As Richard Feynman has note in his autobiography: “…you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool”.  This statement cannot be more true when the phenomenon is question is not directly observable. For example when investigating determinants of a specific behavioral phenomenon a researcher may make propose a hypothesis that is logically unverifiable by any available methods. Such as instead of relying on controlled stimuli and observing response patterns, one can envision infamous homunculus who is observing the observer and causes specific action to suit his desires. A researcher can spend much time in trying to decipher the hidden desires and ambitions of the homunculus as the subject is ripe with questions that seemingly can be afforded answers via indirect observation. One thing that researcher is clearly incapable of demonstrating directly is proving existence of the homunculus in the first place. Nonetheless human creativity is such that the homunculus theory can be infinitely modified to accommodate perceived challenges until the point at which the theory becomes incomprehensible. Thus, for a theory to have predictive valence, it has to befall to direct scrutiny of its observable determinants. Moreover the theory must avoid logical pitfalls of infinite regression and others similar fallacies such that it has a clear and explicit chain of reasoning.

Reproducible and Generalizable Results

If a theory has beautiful explanatory narrative but fails to make correct predictions, it has no utility beyond pure entertainment value. However if it lends itself to making predictions based on the interplay of various determinants and desired results are consistently observed, much value can be gained with further investigations. In our experience of synthesis methodology development we come across many new reaction schemes and have to make predictions based on triangulation of multiple imperfect concepts. Once we make a prediction and compare empirical and hypothesized outcomes, we make adjustment to the weights of different determinants and in some instances have to reconceptualize our view of specific methodology to accommodate empirical results. This process would not be useful if it was not for generalizability to other systems that share same or similar set of determinants such that our predictive accuracy is increased.

In pursuing our passion, we consistently face environmental instigators that induce self-referent theorizing. We believe this to be a natural and expected consequence of scientific pursuit and that, in general, people are psychologically predisposed toward connecting dots where they do not exist. We find it to be our responsibility to deliberately challenge our own thinking such that we deliver the most objective and rational solutions to our clients.