draw up a new hypothesis based on your research
It ultimately depends on what your theory is. Sometimes the fact that your data doesn't support your hypothesis means that the theory from which the hypothesis was derived was altogether wrong and is therefore discarded. Other times it might just mean a simple modification of the original theory, to accommodate the new-found evidence.
The most important thing to remember is that your data will not always support your hypothesis, and in the event that such happens, you end learning a whole lot more.
A.
B.
C.
D.
its A
If the data from an experiment does not support an hypothesis, a person can try the experiment again by changing some of the variables. In an experiment, one part stays constant and one part is a variable. The variable can be changed until the hypothesis is proven true.
You can perform the experiment again to check for errors. The best option is to just state in the conclusion the sources of error and why the experiment didn't support the hypothesis. Remember the hypothesis is only an educated guess.
If data is an outlier, or does not fit with the other data, omit it.
If the information gathered does not support your hypothesis, and you are sure that you have correct data that supports your hypothesis, check your information again, and maybe to the experiment again.
If the data does not support your hypothesis and it is correct data, then you need to state this and why it is so in the discussion and the conclusion.
you should revise or discard the hypothesis.
draw up a new hypothesis based on your research
You must come up with another idea and see if that works.
Revise or discard your hypothesis.
Propose another hypothesis
The integrity of data is when you manipulate and collect the data. It is mostly done in databases.
formed a hypothesis!! [:
There are various reasons to use scientific journals. One is that it can be the basis of research. The research may have been done to either support or falsify specific hypothesis introduced by scientific journal(s). It can also support or falsify the findings of scientific journal(s). Another reason to use scientific journals is the other way around. Scientific journals can be used to support or falsify research findings. The main point is: scientific journals presents ideas and findings. Because hypothesis are deemed "plausible" until proven false, a research is somehow useless if scientific journals that only support the research findings are included. Findings that contradict the research data must be included. If not, then at least, the audience knows that there was either not enough information to contradict the research or the research findings are partly "true." Moreover, scientific journals tell the audience "on what basis did the researchers conducted their research on." Is there enough credibility? (Background) Information? etc.
There is no hard line between a hypothesis and a theory or a law. People do not often refer to new scientific theories as laws because we know they could be disproven at any moment.As a rule of thumb, depending on the quality of the experiment that is being used to test it, the hypothesis becomes a theory when it is verified by multiple scientists on multiple occasions. Once papers are published on the hypothesis and the papers do not encounter significant controversy, they begin to be referred to as theory.Even though there is a fuzzy line between them, there are certainly ideas out there that are definitely one or the other. For example, the theory of gravitation, or the theory of natural selection, or my hypothesis that it will rain tomorrow.
He may have done but his primary discipline and profession was Meteorology - which is partly but not entirely why his contemporary professional geologists rubbished his Continental Drift Hypothesis.
The experiment that you will design is done to test the hypothesis.
The scientist or student scientist should review the results. Conclusions should be drawn based on the results. Then, the hypothesis is reviewed to make sure the results confirm the hypothesis; if not, revise the hypothesis and rerun the experiment.
My hypothesis was correct when my experiment was done and my data was repeatable.
If an experiment does not confirm his hypothesis, the scientist should report this honestly. Even if the results confirmed the hypothesis, further testing should be done by him or others to gather more data.
putting a certain hypothesis is important for the person making a certain experiment.For exampe,if s/he were a scientist,the hypothesis would help in knowing what experiments should be done(in another words,NO hypothesis-->NO experiments will be done).
putting a certain hypothesis is important for the person making a certain experiment.For exampe,if s/he were a scientist,the hypothesis would help in knowing what experiments should be done(in another words,NO hypothesis-->NO experiments will be done).
Its not scientifically the right answer to the hypnosis
When you draw picture than you will need to repeat several times
The data should be organized and the experiment's materials cleaned?
The experiment must be redone and checked for potential errors; does the conclusion of the experiment continuously disprove the hypothesis, the latter must be changed to fit.
False
# Define the question # Gather information and resources (observe) # Form hypothesis # Perform experiment and collect data # Analyze data # Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis # Publish results # Retest (frequently done by other scientists) http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/overview_scientific_method2.gif