|
|
|
|
|
|
by 6510
776 days ago
|
|
|
I'd fill that last bit under unnecessary and undesirable processing. Things are what they are(!) A hypothesis inconsistent with experiments is a hypothesis inconsistent with experiments. It is a mistake to attempt to make more or less from it. You get nothing extra or beneficial out of the effort of rejection. A failed experiment is a failed experiment. There are lots of ways to fail. Faulty materials, defective equipment, outside influences, incompetent experimenters, poor design, POLITICS etc etc A repeatedly failed experiment sounds just as bad as it should. |
|
|
That is an oxymoron. A repeatedly "failed" experiment is a valid scientific result. There is even a classic example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_exper...