I meant along the lines of its ok to reinvent the wheel and come up of new tools that do the samething. Sometimes the new tool is better in the different situtions than the first tool. Even better, we learn that the first tool was biased, thus we learn the truth. Same concept with more than one way to approach or solve a problem. Reducancy is important sometimes.
And that is has what, exactly, to do with my post you were responding to?
You said that you found the idea that we might not want to do everything that we are able to do "offensive"? How is that remotely related to your current point that redundancy can sometimes be a good thing?
Neither you nor I said anything about redundancy. Further, your constant repetition of "sometimes" indicates that you think that redundancy is not always a good thing. So unless you think that we should do redundant things even when it isn't beneficial, then you seem to be agreeing with me that there are situations that we shouldn't do things just because we can.
And if you really think scientists just going around randomly creating radically new approaches to carrying out standard tasks for no reason then you aren't a very good scientist. Scientists certainly do new things and use new approaches when there is a good reason to do so, but they don't randomly re-create whole, well-established procedures from scratch without a very good reason, and reviewers would rightly reject a paper that tried. It adds too many additional variables that can interfere with the experimental approach. Good scientific practice calls for exactly the opposite, in fact. You need to try to make your experiment as similar as possible to the ones you are basing it off of in order to avoid unexpected confounding factors. The principle of changing the absolute fewest number of variables possible is one of the bedrock principles of science.
Last edited by TheBlackCat; 06-27-2013 at 07:14 PM.