It's been a shitty few weeks. After a gazillion paper rejections and two funding "fuck you"s, all whilst working to make a June grant deadline, I do not have the energy to write my full on manifesto right now. But I would absolutely love it if someone could post in the comments a compelling argument for why "descriptive" is considered an a priori flaw in scientific inquiry. Isn't all science descriptive?
If you have ever uttered (or written) the words "You have to have a hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong," then what you are saying is that it is valuable to know the outcome of the experiment being proposed regardless of what that outcome is. And if that's the case, then why does there need to be a hypothesis in the first place? Why is it not enough to say, "I want to see what happens to X when an animal does Y" or "I want to know how groups A and B are different on measure C"?
A hypothesis is supposed to be an educated guess, right? But if there's no data out there to base that guess off of, what's the point of making something up?