Before concluding the theory is wrong was the expariment correct and consistent with the required considitons assumed by theory? In other words, is the pendulum apparatus supposed to fall over during the experiment?
Yes, knowledge necessarily progresses by iteration and trial and error. If we don’t update the theory based on what is learned in the testing we don’t have a scientific theory but a simple statement of faith. The important point to keep in mind, is have we learned something new that was not accounted for previously or are we just making up some post hoc excuse to claim we don’t need to update our theory.
I might also suggest to the professor that point 2 should be kept in mind.
I think my response to the studen would be:
Before concluding the theory is wrong was the expariment correct and consistent with the required considitons assumed by theory? In other words, is the pendulum apparatus supposed to fall over during the experiment?
Yes, knowledge necessarily progresses by iteration and trial and error. If we don’t update the theory based on what is learned in the testing we don’t have a scientific theory but a simple statement of faith. The important point to keep in mind, is have we learned something new that was not accounted for previously or are we just making up some post hoc excuse to claim we don’t need to update our theory.
I might also suggest to the professor that point 2 should be kept in mind.