
Yes, absolutely, though I'd make the observation in a more general sense of
all observations are made by human beings and therefore made with various
biases. 

But here your message leaves talk of hypothesis and gets back, once again, 
to equating the business of science with the end result, the gizmo produced.


My point isn't so much whether or not you have a novel paradigm but *how* 
you come about developing it.


Perhaps you'd admit that this is an oversimplification on your part (the topic
of the philosophy of science is made for them, I'm making them too) but I
think that it also summarizes popular misconceptions of science and the 
business of doing science.  Biomedical research doesn't make any basic 
assumptions that aren't the same as any other discipline of scientific
research.  That is, that you make empirical observations, form an hypothesis
and test it.  Modern medicine has much more to do with biochemistry than 
"the old Newtonian model of the world".  And I doubt that many psychologists
would appreciate being put outside this empirical "world view".  Psychology
also has more to do with biochemistry than spoon bending. 


Oversimplified, of course, but a good example.  This is an empirical observa-
tion.  It was then tested, though perhaps not by Aristotle, and eventually 
found wanting.  In the meantime, some folk will 
have continued to believe in the spontaneous generation of animal life.  
There's nothing at all surprising about this, it's the way the gathering of
knowledge works.  There are probably more than a few things in my own 
discipline of molecular biology that will be found to be totally off-base,
even idiotic, to someone in the future.  These future people won't have come
to these relevations because they had suddenly gone all Zen-like and had 
a vision in an LSD trip.  Someone will have thought of something new and 
tested it.  This is the bit that people who seem to relish misrepresenting
science and research can't seem to wrap their minds around.  Science is a 
creative process.  What I think of as factual and good research can be totally
turned on its head tommorrow by new results and theories.  