Data without an explanation of how it collected is mostly useless. Most of the text that goes into papers is actually useful- you could explain what the heck a carrying capacity of −1 grams is.
Systematic error can be pretty massive, and so if a hobbyist produces interesting results there’s no guarantee they’re seeing something real. Combine that with limited oversight or experience in experimental design, and I’m pessimistic about the quality of the results you’ll get.
In my experience, do-it-yourself engineering has a better record than do-it-yourself science; science is really hard to get right and less satisfying (if your primary desire is encouraging the scientific/engineering viewpoint).
Data without an explanation of how it collected is mostly useless. Most of the text that goes into papers is actually useful- you could explain what the heck a carrying capacity of −1 grams is.
Systematic error can be pretty massive, and so if a hobbyist produces interesting results there’s no guarantee they’re seeing something real. Combine that with limited oversight or experience in experimental design, and I’m pessimistic about the quality of the results you’ll get.
In my experience, do-it-yourself engineering has a better record than do-it-yourself science; science is really hard to get right and less satisfying (if your primary desire is encouraging the scientific/engineering viewpoint).