It is called repeated trials.
Scientists encourage other scientists to review and repeat their experiments so that their hypotheses may become Scientists encourage other scientists to review and repeat their experiments so that their hypotheses may become
Yes? There is always a chance that experimental results happened by chance (something called a Type I error in Statistics which is bad, but over-emphasized). Replications (which are not done often enough) help protect us against such "accidental" effects because reproducing the results by chance is FAR less likely than just getting them once by chance. But reproducing REAL effects should be quite easy. Though if it is the same scientist, in the same lab, it is possible the results can be replicated even when they shouldn't be replicated, not by chance, but because of something systematic (dirty or faulty equipment, poor randomization, experimenter accidently communicates something to the participant, ...).
Because its so "easy" to be wrong in science ... well, in anything, but non-scientists ignore their own errors.
There are no following principles listed in the question.
The scientific method is crucial in scientific investigations because it provides a systematic framework for formulating hypotheses, conducting experiments, and analyzing data. This approach ensures that research is objective, reproducible, and verifiable, allowing scientists to draw reliable conclusions. By adhering to this method, researchers can minimize biases and errors, leading to more accurate and credible results. Ultimately, the scientific method fosters a deeper understanding of natural phenomena and drives scientific advancement.
Repeated Trials
== ==
experiment
replicate
Penicillin was discovered by chance in 1928 by Alexander Fleming when he noticed that a mold called Penicillium notatum killed bacteria in a culture plate. This accidental discovery led to the development of the first antibiotic and revolutionized medicine.
This practice is known as replication. By conducting multiple trials and replicating experiments, scientists can minimize errors and increase the reliability of their results.
average result is the result when you do a few times of the same experiment and get a few result then you average it.
Scientists encourage other scientists to review and repeat their experiments so that their hypotheses may become Scientists encourage other scientists to review and repeat their experiments so that their hypotheses may become
Increasing sample size, using randomization techniques, and conducting statistical analysis can help reduce the effects of chance errors in research studies. These methods can help ensure that the results obtained are more reliable and less influenced by random variability.
Yes true.
they teach dum
Yes? There is always a chance that experimental results happened by chance (something called a Type I error in Statistics which is bad, but over-emphasized). Replications (which are not done often enough) help protect us against such "accidental" effects because reproducing the results by chance is FAR less likely than just getting them once by chance. But reproducing REAL effects should be quite easy. Though if it is the same scientist, in the same lab, it is possible the results can be replicated even when they shouldn't be replicated, not by chance, but because of something systematic (dirty or faulty equipment, poor randomization, experimenter accidently communicates something to the participant, ...).