well what i have learned in my expierence of life and so on... scientists do expirements more than once to get more accurate data. lets say u do a science experiment. (real easy one) like how fast does a wodden car slide down a hill. If u test it out once that's good but it may not be as accurate then if u had the wooden car go down three times. If it takes the car longer then the last time (at a significant difference in time length)then u can probably realize that u did something different than before. However if the length of speed each time is equivalent or close to the last times u tried out the experiment. Then it would probably be safe to conclude that the car goes this and this miles per hour. U want ur data to be accurate right? hope this answered ur question
A scientist is trying to figure something out. The scientist makes a guess and figures out a way to test that guess. That is called an experimental investigation.
trial and error
Quality control and proof of accuracy, to weed out contaminants or bias.
experiments test the scientist theory
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, ...).
A scientist is trying to figure something out. The scientist makes a guess and figures out a way to test that guess. That is called an experimental investigation.
trial and error
Quality control and proof of accuracy, to weed out contaminants or bias.
To ensure that the results are valid. That's the whole point of a science test. The test must be able to be repeated and have the same result to start being considered valid.
Society of Experimental Test Pilots was created in 1955.
Experimental group
Microprocessors are built solely for experimental processes. If a scientist can test how they perform in certain conditions, advances can be made in the field of computing.
If you change more than one variable at a time, you will not be able to tell which variable is responsible for what change. Scientists need to know exactly which variable caused the observed experimental results.It is advantageous for scientists to test only one variable at a time during an experiment because if you change all variables at once, you will not be able to tell which variable is responsible for the observed results.
experiments test the scientist theory
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, ...).
Testing the waterproofness of a fabric is important to ensure its durability and functionality in various conditions. The fabric couch treated with the chemical is the experimental group, as it is the one that is being altered or manipulated to test the effects of the waterproofing treatment.
To garner more information and dataTo check or test hypotheses and theories