A scientist can never prove or disprove a hypothesis definitively because scientific inquiry is based on empirical evidence, which is inherently limited and subject to revision. Instead of proof, scientists aim to gather data that supports or refutes a hypothesis through experimentation and observation. Since new evidence can emerge or alternative explanations may arise, hypotheses remain tentative and open to further testing and refinement. Therefore, science operates on the principle of falsifiability rather than absolute proof.
be testable
conducting experiment
That depends on the result of the experiment. The experiment is a way to test a hypothesis, and it's completely fine if the experiment disproves the hypothesis. Ideally, though, the experiment will support the hypothesis.
By testing your results, and explain in your conclusion what went wrong
identify the problem and what you want to try to prove or disprove. or something like that :D
as many as needed to prove or disprove it
not only to prove a hypothesis, but disprove it as well
To prove the hypothesis. To disprove the hypothesis.
Scientists were expected to conduct experiments to prove / disprove their hypothesis and theories.
An experiment can prove or disprove a hypothesis.
be testable
conducting experiment
Your hypothesis is supported by the data. You cannot prove a hypothesis because somebody may do some other experiments and disprove it eventually. You can only disprove a hypothesis or indicate that it is supported by the data.
That depends on the result of the experiment. The experiment is a way to test a hypothesis, and it's completely fine if the experiment disproves the hypothesis. Ideally, though, the experiment will support the hypothesis.
The researcher's working theory of what s/he expects the research either to prove or disprove.
The researcher's working theory of what s/he expects the research either to prove or disprove.
The researcher's working theory of what s/he expects the research either to prove or disprove.