0
Science/Natural Law
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the most scientifically valid research?
observation
What must a scientific theory have to be valid?
when it is consistent with observation
What is validity of a experiment?
In order to transform the observation of a natural phenomenon into a valid scientific experiment the following conditions must be fulfilled * It has to be a quantitative observation, that is a relationship between quantities expressing the measures of physical or chemical variables has to be obtained; * The way in which the measure has been achieved has to be carefully described so that the measure can be repeated with exactly the same procedure by different scientists, in different places and in different times; * The measurement error has to be carefully evaluated on the ground of the characteristics of the adopted measure procedure and instruments; * Every time the measure is repeated by different persons in different places and in different times the same results have to be obtained within the measurement errors; For example the so called cold fusion is not a valid scientific experiment since the results obtained in the first experiment by Fleischmann and Pons are not reproducible in other labs and the experiment procedure has never been explained in detail. Naturally, if someone claims a result but the claim is based on an observation that is not a valid experiment, it is not a scientific result, but nothing can be told on the base phenomenon, simply it has not been observed correctly.
What are the characteristics of a valid scientific observation?
The most important characteristic is that it be objective, i.e., free from bias.
When is your scientific hypothesis important?
The importance of a hypothesis is measured by its explanatory power. If you have a valid explanation for some previously mysterious or unknown phenomenon, and if your explanation can be experimentally verified, then that is important.
What is the most scientifically valid research?
observation
What must a scientific theory have to be valid?
when it is consistent with observation
What is validity of a experiment?
In order to transform the observation of a natural phenomenon into a valid scientific experiment the following conditions must be fulfilled * It has to be a quantitative observation, that is a relationship between quantities expressing the measures of physical or chemical variables has to be obtained; * The way in which the measure has been achieved has to be carefully described so that the measure can be repeated with exactly the same procedure by different scientists, in different places and in different times; * The measurement error has to be carefully evaluated on the ground of the characteristics of the adopted measure procedure and instruments; * Every time the measure is repeated by different persons in different places and in different times the same results have to be obtained within the measurement errors; For example the so called cold fusion is not a valid scientific experiment since the results obtained in the first experiment by Fleischmann and Pons are not reproducible in other labs and the experiment procedure has never been explained in detail. Naturally, if someone claims a result but the claim is based on an observation that is not a valid experiment, it is not a scientific result, but nothing can be told on the base phenomenon, simply it has not been observed correctly.
What are the characteristics of a valid scientific observation?
The most important characteristic is that it be objective, i.e., free from bias.
How can observation be made more valid and reliable?
observations can be more valid because when you observe things you are kind of making small facts about it and facts are valid unlike opinions which is giving something you think is valid from your point of view but you are not sure for a fact that its real so to make that short opinions are saying what you believe.
Are mudslides natural manmade or both?
After my opinion both affirmations are valid.
Is forming a hypothesis is the same as solving a problem?
No To form a hypothesis is an attempt to explain something just by your own thought (could be anything, but typically an observation, phenomenon, or some other scientific problem). To be a "valid hypothesis" the hypothesis should be testable (typically through empiric investigation) ... and it probably shouldn't sound outright absurd (from a scientific POW) ... depends. ... hope that helps.
Is natural radioactivity is random and artificial radioactivity is controlled?
The same laws and rules are valid for radioactive natural and artificial isotopes.
A student observes that an organism is green A valid conclusion that can be drawn from this observation is that?
4 ..not enough information is given to determine whether the organism is a plant or an animal
Natural events are often accompanied by?
Decrease in energy and an increase in disorder} This is the most valid answer
Define a valid website.?
It is a website that people can use... its like those credit card things... If you can use it it is called valid, and if you can't its called invalid..
When is your scientific hypothesis important?
The importance of a hypothesis is measured by its explanatory power. If you have a valid explanation for some previously mysterious or unknown phenomenon, and if your explanation can be experimentally verified, then that is important.
