Scientists use control groups so that they have something to compare or contrast their independent variable to. Without a control group, they wouldn't have anything to prove if their experiment had any important change. For example, a scientist is trying to prove that the bugs in his garden is affecting his flowers. His control group would be a set-up without the bugs. He would have another set-up WITH bugs. After some time, he would compare the two. If he didn't have a control group, how would he know that the bugs affected his flowers at all? Maybe the flowers were changing due to another factor, but how would you know?
Scientists use control groups to show how something will change under normal circumstances.
Set up an experiment and a control group, which has an independent and a dependent group
bhbh
no
In an experiment, having more control groups than experimental groups is not a strict requirement; rather, it depends on the specific research question and design. Control groups serve as a baseline to compare the effects of the experimental conditions, so having multiple control groups can help account for variability and confounding factors. However, too many control groups may complicate the analysis and interpretation of results. The key is to balance the number of control and experimental groups to effectively address the research hypothesis while maintaining clarity in the findings.
=Scientist use classifacation to but living or nonliving organisms in small or big groups...==Scientist use classifacation to but living or nonliving organisms in small or big groups...==Scientist use classifacation to but living or nonliving organisms in small or big groups...=
Because it helps them know the results of the objects in the experiment and how they differ. This way the scientist knows which succeeded and which failed.
Scientists use control groups to show how something will change under normal circumstances.
Not every experiment has control groups. If control groups are not feasible, you do what you can, and you may still learn something of interest. In the case of something like medical research, which really should have control groups, you can still use general statistical information to establish a baseline. People (for example) normally grow to a certain average height. We administer experimental drug X to our subjects, and they grow to a certain height which can be compared to the statistical average. This does tell us something.
Not every experiment has control groups. If control groups are not feasible, you do what you can, and you may still learn something of interest. In the case of something like medical research, which really should have control groups, you can still use general statistical information to establish a baseline. People (for example) normally grow to a certain average height. We administer experimental drug X to our subjects, and they grow to a certain height which can be compared to the statistical average. This does tell us something.
You use a control group to compare the results of the experimental group to. The control group has the "normal" results. After the experiment, you can tell if and what has changed from the control groups results
Aristotle is the scientist who organized animals into groups according to how they moved.
use a control
In conducting a scientific experiment, a scientist should have a control group and an experiment/treatment group. The scientist proposes a null hypothesis (null because it is intended to be disproven). The scientist then treats the two groups identically except the treatment group receives the treatment and the control group does not. Because the two groups were treated identically except for the treatment, any subsequent differences in the groups is (tentatively) attributed to the treatment. Thus,the control group is the group NOT receiving the treatment. For example, the scientist could propose that "fish will not die if they stop receiving food" (as a null hypothesis). The scientist then places two fish tanks full of similar fish into the same room, so that temperature, air pressure and light are equal. Then the scientist feeds one tank the recommended amount of fish food, while not feeding the other tank at all. After one week of this treatment, the scientist observes the tank receiving food (the control group) contains live fish while the group receiving the treatment (starvation) only contains dead fish. The scientist would then disprove the null hypothesis and conclude (tentatively) that fish do need food to continue living.
carbon dating
Set up an experiment and a control group, which has an independent and a dependent group
Sociologist.