Reproducibility In Science Is As Important As Any New Hypothesis

Science is revised constantly; progressive observations that support and expand on existing ideas are documented. When new knowledge is interpreted by scientists, they must perform a series of experimental trials. These observations can either confirm or contradict the analysis, both are beneficial to resolving the experiment. Scientific explanations are dependent of proof. For example, when a new theory is published, the scientific method for the examination is accessible for others to review. The public has the capacity to acquire the experiment's reports and contribute that data to their own hypothesis. Science is justified through the combination of solutions. Current ideas are continually challenged by others attempting to modify and simplify them into a universal

Do mistakes lead to new discoveries? I believe yes! Sometimes they don't lead to new discoveries but most the time they do. Think about when you were in middle school or something, you got a question wrong on a test, you can now understand how to do it if you do corrections, you learned or discovered how to solve it correctly instead of getting it wrong every time.

Undoubtedly, humanity and modern civilization would have never reached their current form with the research. Research is the key element behind any type of evolution and progress. Contemporary, broadly established theories, varying from the understanding of the universe to the revelation of human evolution, are the result of valuable innovations in different fields of science and technology. Every day life has been simplified due to the constant advance of knowledge and discoveries. However, none of this would be possible without constant research. Therefore, and since research is vital to the development of human civilization, the need to augment and supplement current research methods has become apparent. Even though research outcomes

Replication, external review, and data recording and sharing, are important to the scientific method because it helps support the hypothesis even more. By replicating the experiment and sharing the data, it increases the validity of the experiment. Semmelweis included these concepts in his experiment by repeating the experiment multiple times, he showed a third party (other scientists) his experiment, and he shared his data and results to multiple sources, but scientists dismissed it.

How then, do different scientists find different results? Look at Manouvier’s research, Gould says, “when he corrected for what he called “sexual mass” women actually came out slightly ahead in brain size.” These men researching the exact same thing with the same tools had opposite results. Then think of something different not involving Gould and Broca; something like the periodic table. It’s true that the law of octaves has not changed in over a hundred years, but what about other organizations of this important scientific chart? Some time periods believe the table is set up according to atomic mass, while others believe it is because of atomic number. Think about the atom as well, the idea of an atom is so much different now then what it was a hundred years ago. Science doesn’t stay still and who knows what it will be in the

The article discusses the increasing trend of conducting replications, as opposed to novel idea studies Additionally, the article highlights that replications are becoming more common and can lead to debunking and discrediting another’s work. Unfortunately, with the focus being on replication, the time spent conducting and exploring new knowledge is consequently reduced. However, it is also suggested that replications provide accountability for scientists to ensure their work is of high quality. Questions to discuss in class: What do we think is the ultimate goal of conducting a replication versus an original study? How can scientists ensure that as a field, the

One of the greatest dangers to scientific studies is the "confirmation bias". When a researcher is trying to collect documents and publications for what is studying or analyzing, it is very likely that only see, or just to notice what "it suits" for what he wants to prove. Moreover, even almost unconsciously, it is liable to see more quickly connections with other publications that seem to corroborate their investigations. Unfortunately, this "confirmation bias" affects not only scientific studies. It concerns us all. In today's article, I intend to show by example how to detect this phenomenon and some techniques to try to avoid it.

To design and carry out a certain experiment, one should follow some crucial steps. These steps holistically make up a systematic process called the scientific method (Penn State Science, 2008). The scientific method involves the recognition of a problem, compilation of background research, formulation of a hypothesis, design and conduction of an experiment, interpretation of a conclusion, and discussion of future implications of the investigation (Hess, 2011). Overall, this is a fundamental outline of how the experiment ought to be executed.

To be confident in doing high-quality work, it is essential to locate critical information. Cunningham, Salomone, and Wielgus (2015) wrote that

The amount of access we possess creates an abundance of convenience which allows people to look further into information. Especially for other researchers like myself, this proves to be very helpful. A ‘scientific fact’ is something that is repeatedly observable over many independent experiments, which must be done by many independent researchers. If many groups have come to one conclusion, they often share it with the scientific community to affirm that the outcome is correct. Through the use of technology, this has become increasingly easier over time, allowing researchers to communicate with others across the globe in order to come to identical conclusions, furthering the scientific community as a

Discoveries and mistakes usually come as a package deal. Most great discoveries come after multiple, maybe enormous amounts of errors. Mistakes can be made by carelessness and/or lack of knowledge. Although some may say that people are so talented in the field of mechanics that faults would not likely happen, these thoughts are flawed. The fact that discoveries can be created from failed attempts has been supported by many historical events.

A brilliant author by the name of Cassandra Clare once declared, “Only the very weak-mined refuse to be influenced by literature,” (GoodReads). Since the first book publication, the world around us has been undeniably and overwhelmingly impacted. Although the very nature of each influence may vary, the significance to the reading public cannot and will not be ignored. The content of my grandmother’s favorite book, Mutant Message Down Under, varies from my current favorite book, Divergent; but this does not discredit either works. As noted in Joseph R. Dominick’s book, entitled The Dynamics of Mass Communication, the content of books throughout the generations has altered—which effortlessly engenders waves of newfangled favorites.

Many people rate and trust scientific experiment as they can be replicated improving the reliability of findings.

In The Economist’s article, “Let’s Just Try That Again” (2016), the anonymous author claims that meticulous retesting of previous experiments is a vital part of the scientific process, and though it has been neglected over the years, it could be experiencing a renascence. He or she supports their assertions by introducing an upcoming scientific journal dedicated to rechecking old studies, explaining the reasons the act of verification fell into obscurity, and showing the failings of previously unchecked experiments. Their purpose is to bring the matter to their readers attention in order to stimulate further interest and discussion on the topic. The author displays an excitement and hopefulness towards the future of scientific research as well

Replicability means being able to test a claim multiple times in a variety of ways and still yield similar outcomes. Scenario A fails to display this principle because Dr. Preleg only conducted two experiments, both of which produced the same results. However, the professor should have conducted more trials in order to support his claim and disprove the fact that his initial discoveries were coincidental. For instance, he could have conducted his experiment with another class of a different subject, not just macro-economics. In addition, he could have tested his claim with various age groups and switch the two groups from his previous experiment. By doing so, this will provide Dr. Preleg a great collection of data and therefore obtaining more