Scientific Method

You can show how chemists use indicators to determine if a substance is acid or base.

You make the indicator by chopping up some red cabbage and soaking it in water.* The water will turn blue from the color in the cabbage. This water is your "indicator". Pour it off in one or more glasses and add various substances to see the color change. Acids will make the water red and bases (alkalies) will make the water blue again.

Try vinegar (acedic acid) - a small amount will do.

Try baking soda (sodium bicarbonate).

*The indicator water will be much brighter colored if you heat the cabbage in the water for a minute or two.

You think about a reason or reasons that you believe might be contributing to this problem, and then you write them down. This becomes your hypothesis, which you must then prove through research and experimentation.

But before trying to support your hypothesis, do a little research to see if someone else has considered and tested it. Just keep speculating, and sharpening your hypotheses based on what others have done. Eventually, you MAY come upon an original and untested hypothesis, or you may conclude that you agree with something someone has already proposed. Very likely, the 'answer' will be a complex combination of factors including social, parenting, economic, genetic, biological/agricultural, and educational elements.

He urged people to use their sences to make observations, just as scientist today make observations

the chartists NEVER use violence to achieve their aims.

Publishing the results. Analyze and report findings.

Depends. If you can somehow experiment on it, then Yes, it's possible. But the Scientific Method cannnot test "beliefs" of any sort. It can test hypotheses. So if your hypothesis is, for example, "There is extrasensory perception," you could develop a scientifically valid test of the hypothesis.

You would have to identify and control for variables and your experiment would have to be capable of duplication by other researchers. The results would have to be unambiguous, that is, not explainable by any alternate hypothesis. Hope we helped!

The hypothesis

I believe Qualitative and Quantitative observations?

It depends if there is enough information.

Hypothesis

On a typical science fair posterboard, you should have the following headings:

Introduction- introduce your topic, how this topic affects the world, etc.

Problem - the aim of the experiment

Hypothesis - educated guess on the outcome

Materials - materials used in the experiment

Procedure - list each step in your experiment in chronological order

(Pictures) - you really don't have to have a heading for this

Graphs - you should probably head this one

Results - results of the experiment

Conclusion - your conclusions. include applications of your results here.

Also, it would be a good idea to have a small note on the corner of your board stating that all pictures were taken by the experimenter.

A scientific question implies that you are inquiring about the world around you, and expecting a fairly precise answer. Also, if the subject matter of the question is such that it might normally concern one of the scientific disciplines, it will get classified as a science question.

he has to evaluate what he has found out before hand

the method of a science project of earthquakes

independend varable (<>)

Scientific Method:
1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a question.
3. Make a hypothesis.
4. Conduct an experiment.
5. Draw conclusions.
6. Share your results.
7. Do other experiments done by others agree?
8. Yes or no?
9. if no, do again.

ice baby

Aseptic technique can be used on living tissues by ensuring that all equipment and surfaces are sterile to prevent contamination. This includes using sterile instruments, wearing gloves, and maintaining a clean environment to minimize the risk of introducing pathogens during procedures such as surgeries or tissue biopsies.

The theory of evolution and inheritance of traits was worked out using the scientific method. The initial work in this area was done in the 1800's by a priest named Gregor Johann Mendel who worked with peas. He worked out the laws governing the espression of dominant and recessive genes, although at the time he didn't know what was responsible.

Evolution is simply a process of natural selection of traits that have some sort of advantage. In hot climates with lots of sunshine, dark skin has an advantage. In nothern climates, light skin has an advantage because in nature, sunlight makes us manufacture vitimin D. If a dark skinned person moved from Africa to Norway, and didn't eat the correct foods, they would suffer from a vitimin D deficiency because their skin color reduced the affect of sunlight on their ability to produce vitimin D. So in a northern climate, light skin is and advantage and left undisturbed for a few centuries, the population would tend to become fair skinned blonds.

In Africa, fair skin is a problem because it sinburns easily and light skinned people tend to develop skin cancer if they do not protect themselves. So in equatorial climates, dark skin is an advantage and left undesturbed for a few centuries, a population would tend to become dark skinned and dark haired.

This is the way evolution typically works. In some cases, there are changes in the genetic makup of an individual that makes him/her more successful. This is called a mutation. Most mutations are fatal but some are advantageous. For example, humans have a mutation that reduces the strength of our muscles compared to our other primate relatives. If we had very strong muscles like chimps and gorillas, we would need a bonny crest on the top of our skull to anchor our jaw muscles. Since our jaw muscles are weak, we can anchor them to the side of our skull and this allows for a larger brain case. This is an advantage and the individual that first had that mutation now has decendants everywhere on earth. Other mutations make it possible for some groups to eat diary foods while others cannot. A mutation that provides protection from malaria to black people is also responsible for cicle cell enimia - and example of a mutation that offers both and advantage and a disadvantage.

The scientific method relates to evolution because that is how the natural laws were discovered. In the scientific method, we look at evidence and we come up with a theory to explain it. Then we look for things that the theory predicts but which we have not yet observed. If these things are found, then the confidence in the theory is strengthened. If these things are not found or if things that the theory says cannot happen are observed, then the theory is wrong and we come up with a new one that explains the new observations as well. When we come to a point where we have a theory that fits all of the data and isn't contradicted by evidence, then we use that theory as if it were true. In some cases it is and in some cases it isn't. For example, Newtons laws work for objects that are not moving very fast relative to each other but we know that the these laws are not true because they break down at high speeds approaching the speed of light. We have much better theory that explains the observations made at high speeds called relativity. The same applies to evolution.

Yes. Nine times out of ten that is how an outcome is determined. But, sometimes they may perfer to do things in a differernt way, order, or style to see the many different outcomes. The Scientific Method is always the way to go.

steps: 1. ask a question 2. form a hypothesis 3 test hypothesis 4. analyze results 5. draw conclusion 6. communicate results

A hypothesis is an important part of the scientific process because it is the initial generation of a proposed explanation for a natural phenomenon and can be tested by experiments.