3 ms·

My good friend convinced another friend to do this for a "small" uni project. They showed it worked to a very impressed professor, only to shortly after discove

My good friend convinced another friend to do this for a "small" uni project. They showed it worked to a very impressed professor, only to shortly after discover (and not reveal to the professor) that it was disconnected and they were just seeing noise. He passed away a few months after, but this sparked a smile in me.

ptero 2y ago
This is common in early stage research. And, should the students reveal the error to the professor, the reaction should have been along the lines "thank you for the update! It was a great idea. Ideas can at first appear to work due to luck or a methodology error, then fail. This is normal. Great job self-discovering the failure. Keep trying ideas, this is how the research is done!" But it is important to eventually do more rigorous checks before going for a public announcement. See Robert Wood's debunking of N-rays for what happens when one does not.
- spwa4 2y ago
  Well, I have 2 experiences of discovering this to be the case in others' setups (one that they reported noise instead of results, or maybe even went further. They reported a massive success, and yes, better "results" than I did. They were always reporting zero + some noise as opposed to measurement + noise. Given that it was always reporting zero I might be convinced this was a mistake rather than cheating, but ... they certainly didn't correct anything. Their method just didn't work, so they measured small values, which made the noise on their sensor actually close to the correct value (they "corrected" negative values by ignoring the minus sign). Another was a case of dissolved metals suddenly appearing out of nowhere in test tubes, changing the results (where only 3 people, not including me, but including the professor, has access to them) and in one case I was ignored, in the other case punished (essentially fired).
dekhn 2y ago
I would say much of my career in science consisted of getting results, showing them to smarter people, and being told I was just looking at noise. (most of the time, that was true)

ptero 2y ago

This is common in early stage research. And, should the students reveal the error to the professor, the reaction should have been along the lines "thank you for the update! It was a great idea. Ideas can at first appear to work due to luck or a methodology error, then fail. This is normal. Great job self-discovering the failure. Keep trying ideas, this is how the research is done!" But it is important to eventually do more rigorous checks before going for a public announcement. See Robert Wood's debunking of N-rays for what happens when one does not.

spwa4 2y ago
Well, I have 2 experiences of discovering this to be the case in others' setups (one that they reported noise instead of results, or maybe even went further. They reported a massive success, and yes, better "results" than I did. They were always reporting zero + some noise as opposed to measurement + noise. Given that it was always reporting zero I might be convinced this was a mistake rather than cheating, but ... they certainly didn't correct anything. Their method just didn't work, so they measured small values, which made the noise on their sensor actually close to the correct value (they "corrected" negative values by ignoring the minus sign). Another was a case of dissolved metals suddenly appearing out of nowhere in test tubes, changing the results (where only 3 people, not including me, but including the professor, has access to them) and in one case I was ignored, in the other case punished (essentially fired).

dekhn 2y ago

I would say much of my career in science consisted of getting results, showing them to smarter people, and being told I was just looking at noise. (most of the time, that was true)