他人得以裁定你究竟做出了多少贡献，而不是单单提出会引导大家偏向某种看法的资料。” 按霍尔顿的评价，密立根的确没有做到。按富兰克林的评价，即使密立根将全部数据发 表，他的结论并未受影响，只是统计误差稍微增大。密立根并没有删改数据，也没有造假， 他只是凭个人经验对数据进行选择，尽力排除可信度差的数据。科学家凭自己敏锐的判断力， 将可靠性差的数据排除，使实验结果更精确和可靠，是理所当然的。显然，不同的标准 下评价差异很大。 参考文献： (1)Robert P.Crease.The Prism and the Pendulum:The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments in Science[M].New York:Random House,2003. (2)Holton,Gerald.Subelectrons,presuppositions,and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute,The Scientific Imagination:Case Studies[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1978 〔3)杨建邺、段永法，密立根和厄伦哈夫特之间的一场论战，科学技术与辩证法[)，1994， 3:34 (4)Millikan,R.A.The Isolation of an Ion,A Precision Measurement of Its Charge,and the Correction of Stokes's Law.Physical Review[J].32(1911):349-97. (5)Millikan,R.A.On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Avogadro Constant,Physical Review[J.2(1913):109-43. (6)密立根著，电子及其它质点（上册）M,钟间译，商务印书馆，1954,69. (7)Franklin,A.Millikan's Published and Unpublished Data on Oil Drops.Historical Studies in the Physical Science[J].11(1981):185-201 (8)Franklin,A.The neglect ofexperiment[M],Cambridge University Press,1986. (9)Ackermann,R.J.Data,Instruments,and Theory:A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science[M],Princeton:Princeton University Press,1985,112. (10)Robert H.Kargon,The Conservative Mode:Robert A.Millikan and the Twentieth-Century Revolution in Physics./S/STJ],1977,68(No.244):509-526. (11)卢德馨，油滴实验和偏倚期盼现象，大学物理)，2011.1.(30)1：16 (12)Franklin,A.Selectivity and Discord:Two Problem of Experiment[M],University of Pittsburgh Press,2002,75. An Analysis on the Philosophical Background of the Comments of Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment Abstract:In different times,there are different comments on Millikan's oil drop experiments and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute.Logical-empiricist highly praised the superb skill of Millikan and his beautiful data.Historicism treated it as the typical case of"theory-laden of observation".But the contemporary New Experimentalist tried to defend of Millikan's selected data to publish on the nature of the experiments itself.This case shows that in different times there are different kinds of historiography.The historical account can't be ended. Keyword:Millikan's oil drop experiment,theory-laden of observation,the New Experimentalism. 17 他人得以裁定你究竟做出了多少贡献，而不是单单提出会引导大家偏向某种看法的资料。” [11]按霍尔顿的评价，密立根的确没有做到。按富兰克林的评价，即使密立根将全部数据发 表，他的结论并未受影响，只是统计误差稍微增大。密立根并没有删改数据，也没有造假， 他只是凭个人经验对数据进行选择，尽力排除可信度差的数据。科学家凭自己敏锐的判断力， 将可靠性差的数据排除，使实验结果更精确和可靠，是理所当然的。[12]显然，不同的标准 下评价差异很大。 参考文献： 〔1〕Robert P. Crease. The Prism and the Pendulum: The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments in Science[M], New York: Random House, 2003. 〔2〕Holton, Gerald. Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute, The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 〔3〕杨建邺、段永法，密立根和厄伦哈夫特之间的一场论战，科学技术与辩证法[J]，1994， 3：34. 〔4〕Millikan, R. A. The Isolation of an Ion, A Precision Measurement of Its Charge, and the Correction of Stokes’s Law. Physical Review[J]. 32(1911): 349-97. 〔5〕Millikan, R. A. On the Elementary Electrical Charge and the Avogadro Constant, Physical Review[J] . 2 (1913): 109-43. 〔6〕密立根著，电子及其它质点（上册）[M]，钟间译，商务印书馆，1954,69. 〔7〕Franklin, A. Millikan’s Published and Unpublished Data on Oil Drops. Historical Studies in the Physical Science[J]. 11(1981): 185-201. 〔8〕Franklin, A. The neglect of experiment[M], Cambridge University Press, 1986. 〔9〕Ackermann, R. J. Data, Instruments, and Theory: A Dialectical Approach to Understanding Science[M], Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985,112. 〔10〕Robert H. Kargon, The Conservative Mode: Robert A. Millikan and the Twentieth-Century Revolution in Physics, ISIS[J], 1977, 68(No.244): 509-526. 〔11〕卢德馨，油滴实验和偏倚期盼现象，大学物理[J]，2011.1.(30)1:16. 〔12〕Franklin, A. Selectivity and Discord: Two Problem of Experiment[M],University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002,75. An Analysis on the Philosophical Background of the Comments of Millikan’s Oil Drop Experiment Abstract：In different times, there are different comments on Millikan’s oil drop experiments and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Logical-empiricist highly praised the superb skill of Millikan and his beautiful data. Historicism treated it as the typical case of “theory-laden of observation”. But the contemporary New Experimentalist tried to defend of Millikan’s selected data to publish on the nature of the experiments itself. This case shows that in different times there are different kinds of historiography. The historical account can’t be ended. Keyword: Millikan’s oil drop experiment, theory-laden of observation, the New Experimentalism