A selected history of expectation bias in physics — mentioned by mirimir

Sun, 24 Nov 2019 03:47:29 GMT

True. But all too often, people stop checking when their results agree with prior work. But then, eventually, someone is confident enough to publish results that aren't consistent with prior work. Jeng (2005) A selected history of expectation bias in physics <https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0508199.pdf> Also see Feynman's comment about the electron charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.2...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A selected history of expectation bias in physics — mentioned by Osmium

Wed, 19 Aug 2015 21:15:03 GMT

> For instance, studies that compute the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron (to 10 decimal places no less) and then compare that against the experimentally obtained value would be classified as "high rigor". You mean like, say, measuring the elementary charge of an electron to high precision? ;) Richard Feynman has something to say about the rigor of those experiments... > We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

A selected history of expectation bias in physics · HackerPapers discussions

A selected history of expectation bias in physics — mentioned by mirimir

A selected history of expectation bias in physics — mentioned by Osmium