Changes
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them - exactly the opposite of what [[Michael Mann]] did with his [[hockey stick graph]]
A physicist wrote:
* ... Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way. [http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/PHY_LABS/AppendixE/AppendixE.html]
Another physicist, [[Richard Feynman]], wrote:
* ... if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid-not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked-to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
* Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can-if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong-to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. [http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node13.html]
[[President Eisenhower]] warned:
