Exploratory experimentation is not theory-free
Meeting 2 | Tuesday, September 15, 2026 | 1:00-2:00 PM Pacific
Central question
What makes exploration systematic when a hypothesis or even the relevant concepts are not yet stable?
The paper pair
Pairing type: Historical account / conceptual qualification.
Paper A: Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation
- Philosophy of Science (1997). Paper / publisher record
Read Steinle’s full short paper. The original publication is 1997; later online posting is not a second publication year.
Access: Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.
Paper B: The Strong and Weak Senses of Theory-Ladenness of Experimentation: Theory-Driven versus Exploratory Experiments in the History of High-Energy Particle Physics
- Science in Context (2013). Paper / publisher record
Read Karaca’s introduction and concluding discussion. A discussant selects one high-energy-physics case; the entire long article is optional.
Access: Publisher/DOI page; full text may require institutional access.
Why these papers belong together
Steinle reconstructs exploratory experimental work. Karaca distinguishes ways theory enters exploratory and theory-directed experiments. Together they resist both a hypothesis-first caricature and the opposite claim that observations are theory-free. (Steinle 1997; Karaca 2013)
Prepare before the meeting
Choose a small unfamiliar dataset or laboratory output. Withhold a target hypothesis, but provide provenance and relevant safety constraints.
Discussion questions
- Which assumptions are needed to operate and interpret an instrument?
- When does changing a representation amount to changing a concept?
- How should an agent record an exploratory action without retroactively inventing a hypothesis?
One-hour meeting
| Time | Activity |
|---|---|
| 0-10 min | Independent first judgments; surface disagreements. |
| 10-25 min | Compare the papers: claim, evidence, assumptions, and limits. |
| 25-45 min | Work through the case exercise below. |
| 45-55 min | Translate the discussion into agent requirements and tests. |
| 55-60 min | Record an output and one unresolved disagreement. |
Case exercise
Independently log the next five actions you would take. Compare inspection, plotting, variation of conditions, calibration, literature consultation, and anomaly follow-up. Tag assumptions rather than pretending the actions start from no prior knowledge.
Agent-design or evaluation output
Exploration policy v1: allowed actions, their information purpose, assumptions, evidence retained, and criteria for switching to hypothesis discrimination.
Record after the meeting
Record the evidence for your main claim, what changed your mind, what remains unresolved, and one change to the agent or its evaluation. Keep confidential examples in private group notes rather than committing them to this public book.