= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Decius comments on [SEQ RERUN] Tolerate Tolerance - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (20)
Also, keep in mind that the only was an experiment can fail is if it provides no new information; the only way to render an experiment invalid or less useful is to show that you don't know as much more as you thought you did.
But I thought you were referring to the modification of the two-slit experiment where electrons were the wave being measured, not photons.
And an experiment can't fail to provide new information, because you thought it would provide information and then it didn't, which means it has something to teach you about experiment design. Unless you're proposing that an experiment that goes exactly as expected is a waste of time?
That said I think what Wilde means by 'invalid' is that a strong conclusion that resulted from the experiment is invalid in light of the fact that an entirely different model is consistent with the evidence.
An experiment that fails would be "I was trying to measure the speed of neutrinos, but I measured lab errors instead.", or "I tried to titrate a solution, but used an excess of phenolphthalein accidentally."