Oh absolutely. "think again" vs "adjust" is a decision. Is there
a problem with the plan that requires adjustment, or is there a
problem with one of the basic assumptions that led up to the
plan that requires scrapping the plan entirely because a base
foundation was incorrect?
You can have a marvelous hypothesis that that measures and tests
perfectly and leads to a wonderful conclusion... only to find
out later that the hypothesis ITSELF had fundamental flaws in it
because the underlying assumptions were wrong. What's
marvelous about the double-loop, is *nothing* is sacred to it,
there's nothing that is forbidden to be revisited and checked.
It's also more frightening because you could be going against a
lot of received wisdom in the process that could _also_ end up
being found wrong in the process. Paradigm shifts is a fancy
term for it. For example, what if observation and experience
turn out to be unreliable in a particular circumstance? What if
empiricism is the assumption that turns out to be mistaken? In
short, there's no sacred cows, as it's all about the process,
not the content.
