Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
******************************The rule which prevails in the lab should be that "data are bad only when
students do something incorrectly, otherwise they should be good". That
does not happen with "black boxes". During our experimentation we had to
reject data from numerous trials knowing very well that nothing was done
wrongly by us. Even in the case of coffee filters we often observed
strange curves and rejected them on the basis that "something is not
right" basis.
I hope that I'm misreading this. The burden, as I understand it, is on
the experimenter to demonstrate that the data are "good". The ultimate
test is that that the data are reproduced independently in a different lab.
Deviations from expectations should certainly be investigated - consider
the guy who kept moving his photographic film away from the drawer
containing the radium ore (before the discovery or radioactivity). In other
words, the rejected data were just as "good" as the accepted data. The
rejection merely biased that experiment in favor of your expectations.