0
What else can I help you with?
What evidence could confirm the existence of mantle plumes?
Seismic imaging showing a vertical column of hot material rising from the mantle to the surface, geochemical signatures indicating deep mantle material reaching the surface, and age dating of volcanic rocks showing a pattern of progressively younger ages in the direction of the suspected plume source are all evidence that could confirm the existence of mantle plumes.
How long was it before new evidence emerged to support wegener's original theory?
It took several decades before new evidence emerged to support Wegener's original theory of continental drift. In the 1960s, significant discoveries such as seafloor spreading and plate tectonics provided strong evidence to confirm Wegener's ideas. This eventually led to the widespread acceptance of the theory of plate tectonics in the scientific community.
What changes gives NO evidence that a chemical reaction has taken place?
Changes such as a change in state (solid to liquid), change in color, change in odor, change in solubility, or change in temperature do not provide direct evidence that a chemical reaction has occurred. These changes can be indicative of a physical change rather than a chemical change. To confirm a chemical reaction, additional evidence such as the formation of new substances, evolution of gas, or consumption of reactants is necessary.
What evidence would confirm the existence of mantle plumes?
Confirmation of the existence of mantle plumes can be supported by evidence such as hotspots causing volcanic activity not associated with plate boundaries, geochemical signatures in volcanic rocks consistent with deep mantle sources, and seismic tomography revealing vertical conduits of hot material rising from deep within the mantle.
What is the evidence that the earth is getting warmer?
Evidence that the Earth is getting warmer includes rising global temperatures, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events like hurricanes and droughts, and shifts in ecosystems and wildlife distributions. Multiple scientific studies and data from sources like satellites, weather stations, and ocean buoys confirm these trends.
Did the addition of molecular evidence support or refute the hypothesis that you made earlier based on structural evidence only?
The addition of molecular evidence supported the hypothesis made earlier based on structural evidence. Molecular evidence provides additional data that can confirm or strengthen hypotheses that are based on structural evidence.
What do scientists attempt to confirm by testing one hypotheses?
preditions x)
Should hypothesis be supported by evidence?
Yes, hypotheses should be supported by evidence to be considered valid. Evidence helps to confirm or refute the hypothesis, guiding further research and understanding of the subject. In scientific inquiry, robust evidence strengthens the credibility of the hypothesis and contributes to the development of knowledge. Ultimately, without evidence, a hypothesis remains speculative and unsubstantiated.
A scientific explanation of natural occurrence is called?
A scientific explanation of a natural occurrence is called a theory or a hypothesis, depending on the level of evidence and support behind it. Theories are well-established explanations supported by a large body of evidence, while hypotheses are proposed explanations that require further testing and evidence to confirm.
What do scientist make and attempt to confirm them by testing one or more alternative hypotheses?
predictions
Why hypothesis must be testable and falsiable but not provable?
Hypotheses must be testable and falsifiable to be scientifically valid because they allow for empirical observations and evidence to support or reject them. Proving a hypothesis is not possible because science operates on the principle of falsification, where hypotheses can only be supported by evidence, not proven true.
What does corroborate?
Confirm, support with evidence
Do all hypotheses have to be testable?
Yes, all hypotheses should be testable to be scientifically valid. A testable hypothesis allows for empirical observation and experimentation, enabling researchers to confirm or refute it based on evidence. If a hypothesis cannot be tested, it falls outside the realm of scientific inquiry and cannot contribute to our understanding of a phenomenon. This characteristic is essential for advancing knowledge through the scientific method.
Scientist routinely make and attempt to confirm them by testing one or more alternative hypotheses?
Predictions
Why must scientific hypotheses be testable?
Scientific hypotheses must be testable because this allows for empirical validation or falsification through experimentation and observation. Testability ensures that a hypothesis can be assessed against real-world data, enabling scientists to confirm or refute it based on evidence. This process is essential for advancing knowledge and understanding, as it distinguishes scientific claims from beliefs or opinions that cannot be rigorously evaluated. Ultimately, testable hypotheses contribute to the reliability and credibility of scientific inquiry.
What do Scientists routinely make in an attempt to confirm them by testing one or more hypotheses?
Scientists routinely make predictions based on their hypotheses in order to test their validity. These predictions outline expected outcomes or behaviors under specific conditions. By conducting experiments or observations to gather data, scientists can confirm or refute their hypotheses, thus advancing their understanding of the underlying phenomena. This rigorous process is fundamental to the scientific method.
When we say science is cycle we mean that?
When we say science is a cycle, we mean that scientific inquiry is an iterative process where observations lead to questions, which generate hypotheses, and then experiments to test those hypotheses. The results can confirm or refute the original ideas, prompting further questions and new hypotheses. This cyclical nature fosters continuous refinement of knowledge, allowing science to evolve and adapt as new evidence emerges. Ultimately, it highlights that science is not a linear path but a dynamic, evolving pursuit of understanding.
