Scientific Method Lab Discussion Question #1 Is one anomaly enough to disprove a hypothesis? If not, how many are? Why is it important that scientists use all of their results and not just some of them? What should we do if the evidence neither supports nor contradicts the hypothesis? Class Discussion Topic How much evidence do we need to conclude that a hypothesis is true? Should it be different for different situations? For example, compare testing a medicine that could have bad side effects to working out which of two approved fertilizers most improve crops. No, an object or person that is anomalous, incomprehensible, and inconsistently occurs is called an anomaly. Simply it's an unusual occurrence.An educated hypothesis about the natural world function that is supported by science is called a hypothesis. In anomaly cannot disprove a hypothesis because it is unclear how it occurred, whereas a hypothesis is supported by factual evidence that is examined to prove its theory. A hypothesis can be put up to account for an abnormality, through a person with six instead of five fingers on one hand, for instance, would be considered an abnormality. Assumed by science the rarity of a person having six toes may be caused by a genetic mutation brought on by chemical exposure or inherited from ancestors due to an additional chromosome. However, since most people have five toes on each foot, it is unclear why the person has six. A hypothesis can only be rejected based on the data gathered or the outcome of the experiments. There are many techniques to test a hypothesis to see if the findings are accurate. Furthermore, a lot of tests can be carried out by scientists to a certain the velocity of a hypothesis such as how elements were found. Following the conclusion of all tests, a theory is created, which serves as a statement used to explain the tested observation. The statement in chapter one that parentheses all matter is formed of atoms parentheses is an example. Therefore, there is no way to estimate a quantity to an answer the issue of how many, as numerous mythologists and experiments have been conducted to support various hypothesis. In order to fully understand the universe scientists must use all available data. For instance, what the law of gravity holds true in space, it does not do so on earth. When a force is applied in space, it however, continuously acts in the same direction until it encounters an obstacle. On earth we use a a bat to strike a ball in the air, the force will eventually cause the ball to fall.
However, such a ball would spin indefinitely in outer space. The information would be used to explain gravity in this area, but it wouldn't transfer to space therefore all data is required because one explanation does not apply to other parts of the universe. The experiment was poorly planned, and the evidence is neither consistent nor inconsistent with the hypothesis. A badly organized experiment yields accurate data that is insufficient to support the hypothesis. Analyzing the data and retesting the observation is a procedure that can be used to determine whether the finding is accurate. Another reason why many tests are conducted to make an observation is that some are tested for years. In fact, the next step would be to modify the hypothesis in order to explain the observation was accurate. We can back the hypothesis by using data that we have recorded. There are many ways to test gravity. I used a bat and ball because my daughter plays softball.