Experimental Physics characterizes the interesting phenomena of physical reality to high accuracy, collecting data that must be explained.
Theoretical Physics sits in an armchair and explains the data it has access to, providing a better framework in which to reason and collect further data.
Not all fields have this fact-theory synergy structure explicitly, usually to their detriment, but conceptually it is an important distinction.
Smart intellectuals seem to theorize by default, but theorizing quality is largely a function of the amount of solid relevant data known or quickly accessible to the theorist. Despite this, people do not seem to automatically go out of their way to find and curate data, much preferring to theorize on what they already know. I would explain many intellectual trends in these terms:
- Useful science happened exactly when the collection and cataloging of large amounts of data became high status.
- Kepler formulated his planetary laws in response to Brahe’s comprehensive data.
- Physics did well because physics needed the least data, and it was easiest to get solid data.
- Fundamental physics has largely stagnated because good data on edge cases has become very expensive.
- NRx happened when the Internet and Google books made possible fast and easy access to large amounts of relatively unfiltered information.
- The problem with social science is its tendency to draw conclusions based on small amounts of data collected by single researchers.
- The flaws in this post are almost entirely due to incorrect and missing information.
I therefor posit the following:
If a school of thought seeks to improve its ideas or spread ideas it believes to be true or subvert enemy ideas it believes to be false, the highest-leverage action is the production and curation of high-quality data sets.