The original statement said nothing about how much work each step was. In fact, the original statement was refuting a statement that was even more simplistic and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
Strictly speaking, if the data clearly supports a conclusion, why does it matter whether you predicted the conclusion or not? Assuming your goal was to learn about the data/conclusion, not to assess your own predictive power.
Post hoc analysis is subject to all sorts of fallacies.
Huh. I just realized that there is nothing that I recognize as a clear Science/Scientific Method sequence (though there is a ton either assumed or sprinkled throughout the sequences) for me to reference.
Reread Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
The original statement said nothing about how much work each step was. In fact, the original statement was refuting a statement that was even more simplistic and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
I agree with your second sentence.
Strictly speaking, if the data clearly supports a conclusion, why does it matter whether you predicted the conclusion or not? Assuming your goal was to learn about the data/conclusion, not to assess your own predictive power.
Post hoc analysis is subject to all sorts of fallacies.
Huh. I just realized that there is nothing that I recognize as a clear Science/Scientific Method sequence (though there is a ton either assumed or sprinkled throughout the sequences) for me to reference.
Reread Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
The piece of the sequences relevant here is probably Science as Attire.
You are not in a position to tell other people to go read the Sequences.