Skip to main content
Log in

The Function of Experiment

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

IN continuing to maintain that stringent experimental test of a theory of Nature is pedantic, Mr. Whitrow would appear to be more extreme in his views than are most of the contributors to the symposium on physical science and philosophy1. Prof. Milne, for example, states that “the relevance of the theorems to Nature would require to be established by observation”2. When Mr. Whitrow persists in claiming the support of Galileo3 on the grounds of his (Galileo's) profession of readiness to accept his own theories4, he displays an imperfect understanding of the nature of experimental demonstration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NATURE, 139, 1008 (1937).

  2. NATURE, 139, 997 (1937).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. NATURE, 140, 646 (1937).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fahie, W. C., NATURE, 140, 646 (1937).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fisher, R. A., “The Design of Experiments”, p. 39 ( Oliver and Boyd ).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

CHILDS, E. The Function of Experiment. Nature 140, 852–853 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1038/140852b0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/140852b0

  • Springer Nature Limited

Navigation