Just read On Practice. While reading it I thought about the scientific method since that’s generally how the process to synthesize theory in the context of science is set out. But here, you need a hypothesis, a piece of theory with which you try to predict the result of a series of conditions within reality. This theory must come from a certain understanding of reality acquired beforehand. Therefore, for someone to use the scientific method, that person must have some experience, however flawed, in relation to the subject. Would this be correct? Does the process in which you begin to interpret data with no theory coming before it (which would kinda be the birth of a science), have a name?
Well, I’m referring to a process rather than a piece of knowledge. Of course axioms can change but even if they change they are conceived thanks to prior theory. Axioms aren’t necessarily the first concepts formulated either, they (those I have studied at least) are very removed from reality. Originally I was thinking about this since I’ve been in some situations at school where I didn’t really have hypothesis or context but I had the task of making a report following “the scientific method” nevertheless, so it was awkward for me