I've often heard others quip that physicists worry too little about the details, whereas chemists worry too much. Recently I've come to better understand the attitudes that give rise to statements such as these.
If you've read other posts on this blog, you've probably realized that I most closely associate with experimental physicists. When I approach a problem, I form a model in my mind that makes intuitive sense. Then, I make the model more rigorous through pictures and equations. Throughout this step, I take extra care to ensure that the model parameters can be easily measured, an approach which no doubt adds a certain flavor to my models. My experiments then become realizations of the model to confirm its predictive power. Sometimes, modeling occurs after an experiment, and, almost always, the process jumps back to an earlier step but proceeds with more refinement.
What I've learned to appreciate is that this process flow varies between individuals in different scientific fields. For example, theoretical physicists don't place as much emphasis on how easy it is to measure a model's parameters, but their theories often extend over a wider range of phenomena. As another example, field biologists must take much more care in preparing an experiment than a physicist in the lab due to costly resources, limited time, and small sample sets. All of these factors leave their mark on the steps in the scientific method.
This understanding is valuable because multidisciplinary research is becoming vital to solving many scientific problems. Before we can help each other, scientists must learn to appreciate and understand our differences; otherwise, we'll never take proper account of the details.
A "lab notebook" about my life in science, programming, and philosophy.
