Observation and theory
One reads mostly observations; theories are thin on the ground and often thin in content, too. Scientists appear rather reluctant to dare or to deviate from a grey average. They're even reluctant to write in the first person; it's always "one". Who's that one? Anyone? Everyone? I don't care. I should be able to voice my own opinion, to try and work out the significance of even small things I do and enrich the frameworks within which I'm working, not just apply, observe and report.Interestingly, in design and the arts (and possibly also economics and politics), people are too quick to theorise and generalise. The tiniest hypothesis can be turned into an unassailable belief or even truth. In this respect, the sciences and the arts may be drifting even further apart. The former observe and the latter make, the former with little room to develop thoughts that appeal and inspire, the latter with little reflection in order to make their products truly relevant.
My own position is probably the trickiest. need the validated theories of scientists to make sense of what happens in my own area but as soon as I apply them, I realise how partial or underdeveloped most are: laboratory results with many limitations and restrictions, sufficient for one or another aspect but not for all. At the same time, in my area people just want easy solutions, prescriptive or proscriptive ways to innovate and impress.
