When different results occur during repeated investigations, it may indicate variability in the experimental conditions, measurement errors, or flaws in the original hypothesis. This inconsistency can prompt researchers to reassess their methods, refine their hypotheses, or explore new variables. It is also an opportunity for deeper inquiry, leading to a better understanding of the underlying phenomena. Ultimately, such discrepancies can contribute to the advancement of knowledge by highlighting the complexity of the subject matter.
They will need to keep redoing it until everyone has the same answer
1. Its important because if you repeat you'll get consistent results. 2. That means if a scientist gets different results it means they did something wrong in the experiment
Well, sometimes the answer is specific to the investigation, but you can usually produce a set of better results, by repeating the experiment at least 3 times. If the results are all similar, you can know that they are reliable, but if there is an anomaly, it is most likely, that that set of results are not accurate and you shouldn't use these when you produce your average. (if you decide to have an average. Hope this helps!
Because conditions my change or be changed.
a valid investigation is an effective investigation i think. The results turn out to be what you had inferred.
They will need to keep redoing it until everyone has the same answer
1. Its important because if you repeat you'll get consistent results. 2. That means if a scientist gets different results it means they did something wrong in the experiment
repeating a investigation can help to confirm your results. If you try an experiment once, it could be wrong so try it again and repeat it to confirm the results.
Because conditions my change or be changed.
Well, sometimes the answer is specific to the investigation, but you can usually produce a set of better results, by repeating the experiment at least 3 times. If the results are all similar, you can know that they are reliable, but if there is an anomaly, it is most likely, that that set of results are not accurate and you shouldn't use these when you produce your average. (if you decide to have an average. Hope this helps!
An investigator may change the value of a variable parameter during an investigation to test its impact on the outcome or to explore different scenarios. By adjusting the variable, the investigator can gather more information and make informed decisions based on the results of the investigation.
Sometimes results of a particular experiment do not match our hypothesis. Most of the time in such a case hypothesis is modified to agree to the experimental data. Another approach can be repeating the same experiment again and comparing the the values form the second trial to the first one.
Results get published.
a valid investigation is an effective investigation i think. The results turn out to be what you had inferred.
because then you realize what you did wrong and fix it.
Repeating trials after reaching a conclusion helps to ensure the reliability and validity of the results. It allows researchers to determine if their findings are consistent and not due to random chance or experimental error. Additionally, repeated trials can help identify any anomalies and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Ultimately, this practice strengthens the overall credibility of the investigation.
so you can try a different method and compare the results