The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Neglect of Experiment
Abstract
What role have experiments played, and should they play, in physics? How does one come to believe rationally in experimental results? The Neglect of Experiment attempts to provide answers to both of these questions. Professor Franklin's approach combines the detailed study of four episodes in the history of twentieth century physics with an examination of some of the philosophical issues involved. The episodes are the discovery of parity nonconservation ( or the violation of mirror symmetry) in the 1950s; the nondiscovery of parity nonconservation in the 1930s, when the results of experiments indicated, at least in retrospect, the symmetry violation, but the significance of those results was not realized; the discovery and acceptance of CP ( combined parity-charge conjugations, paricle-antiparticle) symmetry; and Millikan's oil-drop experiment. Franklin examines the various roles that experiment plays, including its role in deciding between competing theories, confirming theories, and calling fo new theories. The author argues that one can provide a philosophical justification for these roles. He contends that if experiment plays such important roles, then one must have good reason to believe in experimental results. He then deals with deveral problems concerning such reslults, including the epistemology of experiment, how one comes to believe rationally in experimental results, the question of the influence of theoretical presuppositions on results, and the problem of scientific fruad. This original and important contribution to the study of the philosophy of experimental science is an outgrowth of many years of research. Franklin brings to this work more than a decade of experience as an experimental high-energy physicist, along with his significant contributions to the history and philosophy of science.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.10001 · Cited by 1,302
Thagard, P. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00057046 · Cited by 1,043
Simulated Experiments: Methodology for a Virtual World
Winsberg, E. (2003) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/367872 · Cited by 323
Woodward, J. (1989) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/bf00869282 · Cited by 253
Old and new problems in philosophy of measurement
Tal, E. (2013) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12089 · Cited by 154
Metadata
- Authors
- Franklin, A.
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1986-10-31
- OpenAlex
- W3129775901
- Cited by
- 555
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 55.78
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Neglect of Experiment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511624896
- The paper
- Franklin, A. (1986). The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511624896
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.