Seriously, just let it go. I disagree with you, and you disagree with me.
And for what it\'s worth, you did not explain the significance of the oil drop experiment. Anyone who bothered to follow this inane discussion--though I doubt there are any who have--can see it in the post history. The key point you missed is that the subsequent experiments were biased toward the incorrect value provided by Millikan, and that the values trended toward the correct value over time. This could be explained only by the fact that they didn\'t want to contradict his work, and thus sought reasons why their values didn\'t match, accepting error when it favored agreement with Millikan, and rejecting it when it disagreed--i.e., confirmation bias. You mentioned NONE of this, meaning you did not understand my point.
ummm ok yeah so what do you call this:
\"Maybe because later experimenters, for a while, tried to match his data and tried to explain away if they got a different (often more accurate) value until their data matched his? Maybe because he may have tossed away some of his outliers without a detailed enough reasoning?\"?
anyway we will have to disagree on the other stuff (and not that I want to put words into someone else\'s mouth but I don\'t recall one of the developers of heterotic string theory saying anything particularly negative, for the most part, about DxO\'s plots on the forums, and yes, granted, not that that necessarily means anything either)
Apr 27, 2011 at 12:23 AM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #9534728 « DxOMark - Is it relevant? »
