Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 3880867, member: 27832&quot;]Of course. And I&#039;m sure in your lab notebooks you record not just reagent weights, but also scale details and calibration records, because it&#039;s your <i>professional</i> obligation, right? And if you&#039;re publishing, you&#039;d <i>better</i> faithfully report not only measurements but uncertainties/tolerances.</p><p><br /></p><p>By this standard, you are of course free to ignore Doug&#039;s claim. In fact, if you found yourself as a referee on a paper where he published it, I&#039;d expect you to recommend rejecting the paper.</p><p><br /></p><p>But even if Doug had included details about the scale he used, his calibration procedure, the coin&#039;s initial weight, and the coin&#039;s final weight, <i>he could still have made it all up</i>.</p><p><br /></p><p>The (ahem) <i>gold standard</i> of scientific investigation is that the result should be <i>repeatable</i>. So if you have doubts about Doug&#039;s claim, get some coins, weigh them, and start carrying them around![/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in