There is usually one hypothesis for each question you have.

: The word isn't used much in everyday language, but when it is, it is often applied to ideas that have been shown to be untrue. When that's the case — when an idea has been shown to be false — a scientist would say that it has been falsified. A falsifi idea, on the other hand, is one for which there is a conceivable that might produce evidence proving the idea false. Scientists and others influenced by the ideas of the philosopher Karl Popper sometimes assert that only falsifiable ideas are scientific. However, we now recognize that science cannot once-and-for-all prove any idea to be false (or true for that matter). Furthermore, it's clear that evidence can play a role in supporting particular ideas over others — not just in ruling some ideas out, as implied by the falsifiability criterion. When a scientist says , he or she probably actually means something like , the term we use in this website to avoid confusion. A testable idea is one about which we could gather evidence to help determine whether or not the idea is accurate.

Design is needs-driven with the goal of optimally designing something to meet some demand.

CORRECTION: Perhaps because the Scientific Method presents a linear and rigid representation of the process of science, many people think that doing science involves closely following a series of steps, with no room for creativity and inspiration. In fact, many scientists recognize that creative thinking is one of the most important skills they have — whether that creativity is used to come up with an alternative hypothesis, to devise a new way of testing an idea, or to look at old data in a new light. Creativity is critical to science!

You must do at least one experiment to test each hypothesis.

My hypothesis, based on my initial observations and discussions with my friend (who says his car battery is only 3 months old, but he did install new powerful speakers for his car's radio the day before) is that the fuses are blown.

At this point, you attempt to make another "best" guess...

The nest step that the forensic examiner would follow would be the performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters (Science buddies, 2010). This step tends to justify or give evidences to the hypothesis or theories that had been forwarded. The results of the experiments could end up either approving or disapproving the forwarded. This phenomenon highlights the need for the setting up of several separate and independent experimenters. This is to avoid the experts’ bias and prejudice from being reflected on the results. If the forensic expert who made up the hypothesis and possible theories were left to conduct the experiments alone, then he or she would be biased into proving the set hypothesis and theories rather than disapproving them. A control group ought to be set to compare or contrast with the results obtained in the experiments. This would help in the ascertainment of the results of the experiments to be true and not prejudiced.

Which is a better explanation for Eniwetok?

CORRECTION: This misconception likely stems from introductory science labs, with their emphasis on getting the "right" answer and with congratulations handed out for having the "correct" hypothesis all along. In fact, science gains as much from figuring out which hypotheses are likely to be wrong as it does from figuring out which are supported by the evidence. Scientists may have personal favorite hypotheses, but they strive to consider multiple hypotheses and be unbiased when evaluating them against the evidence. A scientist who finds evidence contradicting a favorite hypothesis may be surprised and probably disappointed, but can rest easy knowing that he or she has made a valuable contribution to science.

Which of these explanations is best supported by the evidence?

The next step that the forensic examiner would follow would be the use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations (Science buddies, 2010). The forensic examiner has the task of conducting a study on background information concerning the given case. Naturally, there is bound to be a research or several that is similar or related to the case in question. The forensic examiner has the task of coming up with a literature review of the on previous research that other scientists had conducted in the past that had relations with this particular case. It is not prudent for any research to start from scratch, as it would lead to a lot of time wasting. This is through the investigation and justification of facts that had already been dealt with before. Humans have a pattern when researching on human activities. The research on another related case could provide great insight on the case mentioned.