0
An hypothesis is an untested theory or conjecture, so when a hypothesis is tested and passes the test it becomes a proven theory, or possibly a law or reason or explanation. Until then it is an as-yet-unproven possibility or probability. Just make certain that the facts are not twisted to 'prove' the hypothesis, and the results are confirmed by other experiments and experimenters. It is even better if it becomes accepted by those who didn't agree with the idea in the first place, but that is not always possible!
--
However, a theory is not born from one tested hypothesis, but many. A theory is the result of multiple hypotheses that are said to be true through multiple experiments. Also, a theory may never be actually proven, but merely accepted as the most reasonable explanation. Since science is constantly changing, theories are constantly being formulated to explain things about ourselves or our surroundings.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Wiki User
∙ 14y agoif you can support your idea it will be accepted
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoOnce a Hypothesis has been shown to be valid, it becomes a conclusion.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoA hypothesis is made when there is enough background information about the lab that is being testing.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago- it could be clear and consice ps. i hope this helps
- -jonesfisher
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoOnly after a long series of verified experiments.
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoYes
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Why a new scientific hypothesis might be accepted or rejected?
Observational evidence
Is a scientific hypothesis accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong?
A scientific hypothesis is not accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong. In fact, if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong, then it is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For example, if I hypothesize that an all-powerful being created the Universe, there is no way to demonstrate that this hypothesis is wrong. One might argue that none of the natural laws of science require the intervention of an all-powerful being, but then I would simply argue that is because the being designed things that way. Because I can come up with any unfalsifiable explanation for any objection not only is there no way to demonstrate that my hypothesis is wrong, there is also no scientific reason or evidence to believe it is right.
Why would a scientist change their hypothesis?
In the face of evidence. A Hypothesis is an idea about how something works or will work. Once a test is performed (normally an experiment or a set of observations) then the hypothesis might need to be "refined" or changed to explain the new data. Once a Hypothesis survives all the experiments that people can throw, by correctly predicting their outcomes, then it becomes the "Accepted Theory" for the problem.
If experiments support a hypothesis why is the hypothesis still not considered?
A better explanation might exist.
Why might scientists rethink a hypothesis?
The scientists might Rethink there Hypothesis because when they collect more data they would know more about what they are doing so they would rethink there hypothesis
Why a new scientific hypothesis might be accepted or rejected?
Observational evidence
Under what conditions might profit maximization not lead to stock price maximization?
Under what conditions might profit maximization not lead to stock price maximization?"
How can finding out that a hypothsis is not correct be useful for a scientist?
Hypotheses are based on theories. If a hypothesis seems incorrect then a scientist knows that she has been mistaken about her understanding of the theory, and that's why she formed the wrong hypothesis to test. Or it might be that she has learned that there are new conditions under which the theory does not hold, and that the theory must be refined. Both of these are useful to scientists.
Two reason why an experiment might not support a hypothesis even when the hypothesis is correct?
An experiment might not support a hypothesis even if the hypothesis is correct because if the conclusion
Is a scientific hypothesis accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong?
A scientific hypothesis is not accepted if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong. In fact, if there is no way to demonstrate the hypothesis wrong, then it is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For example, if I hypothesize that an all-powerful being created the Universe, there is no way to demonstrate that this hypothesis is wrong. One might argue that none of the natural laws of science require the intervention of an all-powerful being, but then I would simply argue that is because the being designed things that way. Because I can come up with any unfalsifiable explanation for any objection not only is there no way to demonstrate that my hypothesis is wrong, there is also no scientific reason or evidence to believe it is right.
Why might a national government be hard to form under these conditions?
We can’t answer because we don’t know the conditions you were given.
Why would scientist change their hypothesis?
In the face of evidence. A Hypothesis is an idea about how something works or will work. Once a test is performed (normally an experiment or a set of observations) then the hypothesis might need to be "refined" or changed to explain the new data. Once a Hypothesis survives all the experiments that people can throw, by correctly predicting their outcomes, then it becomes the "Accepted Theory" for the problem.
Why would a scientist change their hypothesis?
In the face of evidence. A Hypothesis is an idea about how something works or will work. Once a test is performed (normally an experiment or a set of observations) then the hypothesis might need to be "refined" or changed to explain the new data. Once a Hypothesis survives all the experiments that people can throw, by correctly predicting their outcomes, then it becomes the "Accepted Theory" for the problem.
If experiments support a hypothesis why is the hypothesis still not considered?
A better explanation might exist.
Why might scientists rethink a hypothesis?
The scientists might Rethink there Hypothesis because when they collect more data they would know more about what they are doing so they would rethink there hypothesis
Why might a scientist rethink their hypothesis?
The scientists might Rethink there Hypothesis because when they collect more data they would know more about what they are doing so they would rethink there hypothesis
What is the definition of scientific hypothesis?
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. It can also be said as predicting.For example Horse and Carabao manure which is better. Your hypothesis might be "Carabao manure might be better" or Horse manure might be better". A hypothesis can only be said one if it uses the words might,maybe,probably,if,etc.
