0
Yes. But usually a hypothesis (if, then, because statement) is changed overtime to establish a conclusion on the investigation. The point of the collection of the data is to show whether or not the hypothesis was supported, and if not needs to be corrected/modified. Certain parts may still be helpful/kept but in most cases it is changed
What else can I help you with?
What does it a scientist fails to reject a hypothesis?
the hypothesis has not been proven wrong.
What does it mean if a scientist fails to rejects a hypothesis?
the hypothesis has not been proven wrong.
Do scientist believe earth was once a comet?
No, that hypothesis has not been proposed within mainstream science.
Why is a hypothesis important to a scientist?
Once a hypothesis have been confirmed through numerous experimental tests, it can then become a theory. Theories are much more powerful and expansive in scope than hypotheses. Once a theory has been established, it is the role of scientist to try and disprove a theory rather than to try to reinforce its proof.
How can finding out that a hypothsis is not correct be useful for a scientist?
Hypotheses are based on theories. If a hypothesis seems incorrect then a scientist knows that she has been mistaken about her understanding of the theory, and that's why she formed the wrong hypothesis to test. Or it might be that she has learned that there are new conditions under which the theory does not hold, and that the theory must be refined. Both of these are useful to scientists.
Can a hypothesis that has been rejected be of any value to scientists?
Yes. But usually a hypothesis (if, then, because statement) is changed overtime to establish a conclusion on the investigation. The point of the collection of the data is to show whether or not the hypothesis was supported, and if not needs to be corrected/modified. Certain parts may still be helpful/kept but in most cases it is changed
A scientist on television states that a hypothesis cannot be proven Access why this statement is correct?
This statement is correct because a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that has not been validated through experimentation and evidence. Scientific inquiry aims to test and gather evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it true. It is always possible for new evidence or data to emerge that could challenge or refine a hypothesis.
Why is a hypothesis that is unsupported by observation rejected by scientists?
Simply put, because there is not enough evidence to support it. "Rejected by scientists" should not be taken to always mean "scientist believe it is impossible" - rather, consistent evidence that support the hypothesis has not been produced.
How do you phrase a hypothesis?
His hypothosis that longterm unemployment contributes to illness was proven after years of painstaking research and personal interviews. My hypothesis for this experiment is that it will turn out successful because it has been done before.
Is evolution science or hypothesis?
Evolution is both: it began as a hypothesis by a scientist who, after some research and thought on the matter, came up with the idea. Since then, that hypothesis has been recognised as a theory, as further evidence came to light supporting the idea and predictions - which were developed based on existing evidence and what the some of the gaps might be - were made, then tested and shown correct.
Is this an unacceptable question?
It's a rhetorical one, and has been so catagorized.
What is a hypothesis that has been tested many times and found to be true?
If a hypothesis has been tested many times (using approved experimental methods), and each test has proven the hypothesis to be true, the hypothesis can be taken to be a fact, or truth.
