I have recieved (and read with pleasure) 9 out of the possible 10 draft theses. Thank you for that. I give an overview of what I have recognized as dreams formulated:
- Support the checking of scientific consensus (look for hidden controversies)
- Find a way to establish that medical evidence meets the Daubert standard
- Build a bridge between alpha and beta disciplines
- Solve the problem of hand-picking snippets of scientific evidence strategically
- Solve the problem emerging when speculation trumps social scientific evidence in courts
- Find out what a doctor’s rights are (how to prevent being held accountable for a patient’s death)
- Give legal experts the knowledge needed for evaluating medical diagnostics
- Combine statistic and scientific expertise
- Recognise (pseudo) scientific evidence as such in court
All these dreams are interesting and on topic in the HC. I think it is wise to warn again that the issue of cross-diciplinary discomforts is too big and complex an isuue to be solved completely in a single HC thesis. To be able to submit something of value it is necessary to focus and define limits of scope.
For example Freweini’s dream (recognise (pseudo) scientific evidence as such in court) is really at the heart of our HC, yet may also be too big to accomplish. When reading what she has been up to, I thought that dreaming about answering questions like how do I define/comprehend the concepts of “miscarriage of justice” and “miscarriage of science” might be more than sufficient for carrying a single thesis. Moreover, such definitions/understanding is almost a prerequisite for the other theses. My point is not that Freweini ought to follow this suggestion, but to stress that when complete solutions are not reasonable, limiting the scope of one’s dream might be in order, and is acceptable.
There have been raised questions about re-engineering. I have suggested that you use this technique for finding mechanisms that help realise your dream. Writing a thesis and planning research for falsification are design activities. Re-engineering is designing in reverse: finding ways how a (possibly imagined) end product can have been realised from a known initial state.
I have noticed that you did really send draft material. Perhaps it is useful for you to be informed that I found the draft by Liz Lieverse currently already up to final-version standards (or allmost).
I think that not everyone has yet grasped the idea of discussing the falsification issue at the end: specifying how a hypothesis can be falsified is of great sceintific importance. When you cannot falsify it,, it cannot become science. So the falsification requirement really matters (also for grading). [And please be reminded that considering side-effects can be part of alsification]
Good luck, success and have a happy new year! (And feel free to email me with specific questions when you happen to get stuck — my ancient experience as a computer programmer taught me that the simple excercise of explaining a problem I got stuck in was often sufficient to see the solution).