The disappearance of darkness

What do you think a filter/filtering something does?

Religion is being a good theoretician?


You know the old joke?
A quack doctor (in the then Wild West) travelling from
town to town treated a farmer for fever: "Eat sauerkraut".
The farmer recovers. The quack doctor writes in his little
black book: "Sauerkraut helps against fever."

Another town, soon after. The smith has fever. So,
consulting his little black book, he orders him to eat
sauerkraut. The smith dies, however.

The quack doctor corrects the entry in his little black
book: "Sauerkraut helps against fever only for farmers."

Can you spot the model and assumption that led the quack doctor
to the "corrected" entry?

So basically Ehrenhaft was wrong.

-Wolfgang

 

No, picking your data to support your model is behaving like a religious
zealot.

As an experimentalist I'm interested only in the data, not the model.

His theory was wrong, his experiments though were simply imprecise.

Science doesn't work by isolated experiment. We had two experimenters,
one of whom fudged the data and the other of whom was sloppy, so they
got different results. Later experimenters did not fudge the data and
were not sloppy and found that their results were similar to those
obtained by the one who did fudge. At that point his model was
confirmed. If instead of fudging his data he fixed his experiment then
he would not have had to fudge.