Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T07:51:14.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproducibility as a Methodological Imperative in Experimental Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Michael J. Hones
Michael J. Hones*
Affiliation:
Villanova University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In experimental scientific research, such as that conducted in High-Energy Physics (HEP), there are a number of problems which are unique to the experimental endeavor in contrast to theoretical research. The preparation of a sample of data to be analyzed requires a number of complicated and interrelated procedures to insure the purity or quality of the data. Thus, for example, in an experimental study of meson-baryon scattering, the separation of events of one type of scattering from others of similar configuration (see the discussion of different configurations in section II) requires intricate and sophisticated procedures along with the application of a number of criteria and standards of analysis. In the case of theoretical research, there are a number of philosophical discussions which formulate certain criteria or norms that theorists usually invoke in their evaluation of theories as well as in the actual choice of one theory over another.

Type
Part X. Experiment
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1990 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1990 , 1990 , pp. 585 - 599
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The research for this paper was supported in part by a Villanova Faculty Summer Research Grant for Summer 1989. Also my participation in a seminar in “Naturalistic Epistemology”, sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities, was instrumental in the initial formulation of this paper. This seminar was conducted by Prof. Larry Laudan at the University of Hawaii during the Summer 1989. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the helpful comments of Prof. Steve Fuller of Virginia Polytechnic Institute.

References

Biswas, N.N. (1970), et al., “Study of Δ++(1236) + Boson Production in π+ P Interactions at 18.5 GeV/c”, Physical Review D2: 2529–2537.Google Scholar
Bock, R. (1962), CERN Internal Report, DD/EXP/62/10. CERN T C Program Library (unpublished).Google Scholar
Burren, J.W., and Sparrow, J. (1963), “The Geometric Reconstruction of Bubble Chamber Tracks”, Rutherford High Energy Laboratory Report NIRL/R/14 (unpublished).Google Scholar
Cason, N.M. (1970), et al., “Study of the Reaction and at 8 GeV/c”, Physical Review DI: 851-867.Google Scholar
Cason, N.M. (1973), et al., “Study of the ρ(1710) at 8 and 18.5 GeV/c”, Physical Review D7: 1971–1977.Google Scholar
Dalpiaz, P. F. (1965), CERN Internal Report. CERN T C Program Library (unpublished).Google Scholar
Donovan, A., Laudan, L., and Laudan, R. (eds.) (1988), Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Franklin, A. (1986), The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galison, P. (1987), How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. (1989), “Scientific Rationality as Instrumental Rationality”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20, no. 3: 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983), Representing and Intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hones, M.J. (1970), et al., “Study of the Reaction at 18.5GeV/c”, Physical Review D2: 827–838.Google Scholar
Hudson, D.J. (1964), Statistics Lectures, CERN Lecture Series, CERN 64-18.Google Scholar
Kornblith, H, (ed.) (1985), Naturalizing Epistemology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S. (1977), “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice”, in The Essential Tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1990), “Normative Naturalism”, Philosophy of Science 57: 44–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtman, S. (1974), et al., “The Reaction at 18.5GeV/c,” Nuclear Physics B 81: 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, G.R. (1962), Lawrence Radiation Laboratory Report No. UCRL - 1033J (unpublished).Google Scholar
Siegel, H. (1989), “Philosophy of Science Naturalized? Some Problems with Giere’s Naturalism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20, no. 3: 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohl, C.G. (1984), et al., “Review of Particle Properties”, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol. 56, No. 2, Part II.CrossRefGoogle Scholar