no. experiments should be repeatd
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
To answer specific questions
Scientists make more mistakes than not. It is part of the business and why they call their work "experiments". As a working scientists you try to keep your basics constant. You control the pH of your solutions, the don't switch suppliers for even basic salts mid-experiment. Most importantly you repeat experiments several times and use statistical analysis to support your conclusions. The goal of scientist is to have his/her results confirmed by repetition by others. If it isn't reproducible than it isn't believable. But wrong conclusions.... Record your mistake in the results and talk about it in the conclusion/examination of data.
They repeat them in order to try and see if it will fail. They may add or remove different variables depending on the results to see if something is effecting the experiment correctly or falsely. Start with a hypothesis and then test it and when you feel you are finished test it thats when the real testing begins.
No they shoudnt have.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
Good science is reproducible, meaning that other scientists should be able to conduct the same analysis and get similar results. If scientists try the experiments and get different results, then it often means that the original publishers did something wrong.
To answer specific questions
they should observe it and pass it on to other scientists
Scientists make more mistakes than not. It is part of the business and why they call their work "experiments". As a working scientists you try to keep your basics constant. You control the pH of your solutions, the don't switch suppliers for even basic salts mid-experiment. Most importantly you repeat experiments several times and use statistical analysis to support your conclusions. The goal of scientist is to have his/her results confirmed by repetition by others. If it isn't reproducible than it isn't believable. But wrong conclusions.... Record your mistake in the results and talk about it in the conclusion/examination of data.
They repeat them in order to try and see if it will fail. They may add or remove different variables depending on the results to see if something is effecting the experiment correctly or falsely. Start with a hypothesis and then test it and when you feel you are finished test it thats when the real testing begins.
Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon