Replies

An additional factor:

I can remember experiments in high school physics where we had to roll balls down a track and time how long it took them to reach certain points. As you might imagine, clicking a stopwatch at exactly the right instant was as much art as science. It required good attention and good reflexes.

I knew what the answers were “supposed” to be, but I dutifully did the experiment as designed and was not surprised to have some data points that didn’t perfectly fit the expected curve. Other students, who knew what the outcome was supposed to be, faked their data, so that it would exactly match the acceleration curve. To my surprise, they got better grades because they had the “right” data. The teacher was apparently too stupid to understand concepts like experimental error. He rewarded students who lied to make their “data” fit.

I wonder how much of that went on in other schools across the country. I wonder how often that still happens today in schools and in real laboratories.

It sounds like your teacher understood how modern science works. It also says a lot about the teacher certification system.

I can remember experiments in high school physics where we had to roll balls down a track and time how long it took them to reach certain points. As you might imagine, clicking a stopwatch at exactly the right instant was as much art as science. It required good attention and good reflexes.
I knew what the answers were “supposed” to be, but I dutifully did the experiment as designed and was not surprised to have some data points that didn’t perfectly fit the expected curve. Other students, who knew what the outcome was supposed to be, faked their data, so that it would exactly match the acceleration curve. To my surprise, they got better grades because they had the “right” data. The teacher was apparently too stupid to understand concepts like experimental error. He rewarded students who lied to make their “data” fit.
I wonder how much of that went on in other schools across the country. I wonder how often that still happens today in schools and in real laboratories.

In the real world, we working scientists are highly suspicious when we see perfect data. The other day, one of my colleagues found data he thought too perfect, and called everyone over to look and laugh at it.

Back in grad school, when my mentor asked me to produce a figure for an important publication, I made two pictures of my experimental result. One picture was almost perfect, the other was full of background. He chose the "ugly" picture for the publication, because it was what anyone following our protocol would probably see. I didn't cheat to get the perfect picture, I just decreased the exposure time, which minimized the visibility of the background.