There is a hidden cost to having a hypothesis. It arises from the relationship between night science and day science, the two very distinct modes of activity in which scientific ideas are generated and tested, respectively [1, 2]. With a hypothesis in hand, the impressive strengths of day science are unleashed, guiding us in designing tests, estimating parameters, and throwing out the hypothesis if it fails the tests. But when we analyze the results of an experiment, our mental focus on a specific hypothesis can prevent us from exploring other aspects of the data, effectively blinding us to new ideas.
Walking intrigues the deskbound. We romanticize it, but do we do it justice? Do we walk properly? Can one walk improperly and, if so, what happens when the walk is corrected?
This talk centered on Hamming's observations and research on the question "Why do so few scientists make significant contributions and so many are forgotten in the long run?"
When you look at the consumer products generated by many other manufacturers, and even by Braun today, there seem to be an awful lot of camels around. Maybe these companies are too diffuse, have the decision-makers in the wrong places or are continually making the wrong decisions and have no one to stop them. They make products with short-term goals in mind, seducing the eye of the buyer with fashionable colors, sensational curves or exotic surfaces. They may have external designers and, perhaps most significantly, the brand identity is defined by external marketing concerns, rather than design or user-related issues.
The lesson to learn from Braun is that allowing a consistent philanthropic design approach to define a company can be extremely successful if it is executed with discipline, flexibility and good timing combined with hard work and, not least, great talent.