You're viewing a single thread.
I’d say it’s equally important to figure out what to observe—to arrange experiments that reveal information you don’t yet know, instead of just confirming what you do.
From what would you draw that "what to look at"?
From predictions that would differentiate between competing models.
Models drawn from observation, assumedly. Hopefully.
(I think that humans are naturally authoritarian. I think that science is still unnatural to us, as a species.)
The scientific process derives consensus from not observing what is expected in a theory, rather from repeated failure to observe counter examples to what is expected. This is the whole point of "reject the null hypothesis".
Stated more plainly, a scientific theory is solidified when you put yourself in the shoes of your own fiercest critics, and attempt to question your own idea (in good faith) and fail to observe any evidence to substantiate that criticism. A scientific theory, is then put under that scrutiny for real, and gains consensus when others fail to observe any counter examples for themselves.
So to answer "what to look at", the answer is always, what would your competition look at to try to disprove you? Then look at that, to see if there is anything of substance to discredit your own idea, and save everyone the time and your embarrassment in case there are easy counter examples.
Turns science into more of a debate than just looking and talking. Quality models through conversational darwinianism.