An appraisal of the controversial nature of the oil drop experiment: Is closure possible?

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):681-702 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Acceptance of the quantization of the elementary electrical charge was preceded by a bitter dispute between Robert Millikan and Felix Ehrenhaft, which lasted for many years. Both Millikan and Ehrenhaft obtained very similar experimental results and yet Millikan was led to formulate the elementary electrical charge and Ehrenhaft to fractional charges. There have been four major attempts to reconstruct the historical events that led to the controversy: Holton ; Franklin ; Barnes et al. ; Goodstein. So we have the controversy not only among the original protagonists but also among those who have interpreted the experiment. The objective of this study is a critical appraisal of the four interpretations and an attempt to provide closure to the controversy. It is plausible to suggest that Ehrenhaft's methodology approximated the traditional scientific method, which did not allow him to discard anomalous data. Millikan, on the other hand, in his publications espoused the scientific method but in private was fully aware of the dilemma faced and was forced to select data to uphold his presuppositions. A closure to the controversy is possible if we recognize that Millikan's data selection procedure depended primarily on his commitment to his presuppositions. Franklin's finding that the selection of the drops did not change the value of e but only its statistical error carries little weight as Millikan did not perform Franklin-style analyses that could have justified the exclusion of drops. It is plausible to suggest that had Millikan performed such analyses, he would have included them in his publication in order to provide support for his data selection procedures. In the absence of his presuppositions, Millikan could not tell which was the ‘expected correct’ value of e and the degree of statistical error. Finally, if we try to understand Millikan's handling of data with no reference to his presuppositions, then some degree of ‘misconduct’ can be perceived. Introduction An appraisal of Holton's interpretation An appraisal of Franklin's interpretation An appraisal of Barnes, Bloor and Henry's interpretation An appraisal of Goodstein's interpretation A crucial test: the second drop of 15 March 1912 Conclusion: Is closure possible?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Can mere phonemes be components of Millikan's substance concepts?Niko Scharer - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):83-84.
Teleosemantics without natural selection.Marshall Abrams - 2005 - Biology and Philosophy 20 (1):97-116.
Millikan's Historical Kinds.Mohan Matthen - 2013 - In Dan Ryder, Justine Kingsbury & Kenneth Williford (eds.), Millikan and her critics. Malden, MA: Wiley. pp. 135-154.
Can planck's constant be measured with classical mechanics?Hasok Chang - 1997 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 11 (3):223 – 243.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
181 (#108,200)

6 months
34 (#101,916)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Theory-laden experimentation.Samuel Schindler - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):89-101.
Observation Versus Experiment: An Adequate Framework for Analysing Scientific Experimentation?Saira Malik - 2017 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 48 (1):71-95.
A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in Education.Mansoor Niaz - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (2):287-305.
A Rationale for Mixed Methods (Integrative) Research Programmes in Education.Mansoor Niaz - 2008 - Journal of Philosophy of Education 42 (2):287-305.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Personal knowledge.Michael Polanyi - 1958 - Chicago,: University of Chicago Press.
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.Imre Lakatos - 1970 - In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-196.
Personal Knowledge.Michael Polanyi - 1958 - Chicago,: Routledge.

View all 17 references / Add more references