/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12093502]

*gets interesting results*
*ignores them because they go against current paradigm*

[Anonymous No.12094483]

>>12093502
the state or science

[Anonymous No.12094498]

Because 99% of the time this means you fucked up somewhere, at least in physics anyway.

[Anonymous No.12094569]

>>12094498
lmao no it doesn't it means the model or even basic concepts can't deal with the results so it looks fucky and nonsensical

>>12093502
usually the results are limited by the paradigm from the very start so they can say everything is fine

[Anonymous No.12094573]

>>12094569
Generally speaking it means your setup was wrong. Of course, if you rule that out, there's no reason to throw away any new data. But speaking from experience, many experimental setups are highly subject to systematic errors.

[Anonymous No.12095120]

>>12094498
>Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of—this history—because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong—and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that.

[Anonymous No.12095249]

>yfw dark matter is actually debunked