It's always good in science to say "Well how do you know that?" and "Are you really sure?" and "Could there be an exceptional case?"
We were criticized throughout that investigation for being too thorough, for taking too long. But time has proved the correctness of that approach.
Scholars do one of two things when they discover information that doesn't fit what they already know. Either they sweep it aside so it doesn't bring their cherished theories into question or they focus on it with laserlike intensity and try to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The imposing edifice of science provides a challenging view of what can be achieved by the accumulation of many small efforts in a steady objective and dedicated search for truth.
The more instances we examine, and the more care we employ, the more assurance shall we acquire, that the enumeration, which we form from the whole, is complete and entire.
A spurious democracy has influenced both our research methods (I am sometimes tempted to define "validity" as part of the context of an experiment demanding so little in the way of esoteric gift that any number can play at it, provided they have taken a certain number of courses) and our research subjects (it would be deemed snobbish to investigate only the best people).
Devotion to the facts will always give the pleasures of recognition; adherence to the rules of design, the pleasures of order and certainty.
