yes because they didnt know how wegners inteligence was and they should have tried it in the firts place anyway it would have helped relize that his hypothesis waas correct when they dobt of him!
A good research hypothesis must first, and most importantly, have a testable hypothesis. The hypothesis should be stated, it is not a question. It should be brief and to the point. Finally, there should some previous research that should be used to help form the hypothesis.
Hypothesis testing is how science progresses. Scientists come up with hypotheses (pl. for hypothesis) based on their observations and what is Known to be true (i.e. Laws of Physics...like gravity). Hypotheses are designed to answer a question and, by definition, MUST be DISprovable. If a hypothesis cannot be disproven, it has no value. For example, if I look outside and then say "I see the sky is blue"...that is not a hypothesis, it is an observation (or maybe a fact...albeit an optical illusion). However, if I look out the window and say "the sky ALWAYS appears blue"....That is a hypothesis, because it is testable and can be disproven, since tomorrow it might be gray.
An experiment is constructed to prove a hypothesis. If you do A+B-C; then you should always arrive at D as a result. Do a thousand test experiments without variation and the result should always be D. When you publish your results, other scientists around the world who follow the steps in the experiment you have outlined will also always arrive at the same result. These replications of the experiment by your peers will prove the validity of your hypothesis.
A correct or good hypothesis includes if then and because. A hypothesis must be a possible answer and must be testable
To write a valid hypothesis you should make it specific, testable and falsifiable.
yes because they didnt know how wegners inteligence was and they should have tried it in the firts place anyway it would have helped relize that his hypothesis waas correct when they dobt of him!
yes because they didnt know how wegners inteligence was and they should have tried it in the firts place anyway it would have helped relize that his hypothesis waas correct when they dobt of him!
A scientists should form a hypothesis, then conduct an experiment.
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.
It means there is no reason why he should reject it, whether because there is no evidence to the contrary or because an experiment set up to test it affirmed that hypothesis.
Whenever possible, a hypothesis should be tested by an experiment in which only one variable is changed at a time. All other variables should be kept untouched and unchanged. Scientists use the data from a controlled experiment to explain the steps and outcomes that produced their final product.
They should try again. Then check very carefully and see if they did the experiment correctly. They may have to change their hypothesis.
no because then they would know least about the world
test your hypothesis.
Reevaluate your hypothesis, or reject the hypothesis. You should also recheck your data.
A good research hypothesis must first, and most importantly, have a testable hypothesis. The hypothesis should be stated, it is not a question. It should be brief and to the point. Finally, there should some previous research that should be used to help form the hypothesis.
A good research hypothesis must first, and most importantly, have a testable hypothesis. The hypothesis should be stated, it is not a question. It should be brief and to the point. Finally, there should some previous research that should be used to help form the hypothesis.