Today's post, Hold Off On Proposing Solutions was originally published on 17 October 2007. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):
Proposing Solutions Prematurely is dangerous, because it introduces weak conclusions in the pool of the facts you are considering, and as a result the data set you think about becomes weaker, overly tilted towards premature conclusions that are likely to be wrong, that are less representative of the phenomenon you are trying to model than the initial facts you started from, before coming up with the premature conclusions.
Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was The Logical Fallacy of Generalizing from Fictional Evidence, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
It can be dangerous. On the other hand, like a proposed hypothesis, a proposed solution can give you a framework to help you analyze the data.
There are significant limitations on human thought. One of them is a serious limitation on how much data we can handle at one time. Having a framework to relate more information to helps manage that problem. One way to reduce the dangers of having a proposed solution is to force yourself to come up with multiple possible solutions.
This sort of iterative problem solving is how almost all real world problems of any complexity are addressed. For a practical example, when I was working for an architect, we would come up with several designs which addressed the clients goals and the physical and other resources available, then we would choose the best and refine it, adding features from other designs that worked better, with feedback from the clients and from further information about the pre-existing conditions and resource availability. There is literally no possible way to have "solved" even a moderately complex design problem other than iteratively.