Being wrong in the scientific sense is good because it opens doors for further research and learning. Furthermore, learning that an original assumption was incorrect can bring about changes in the research methods or experimental procedures. Having to refine a protocol can result in more careful application of tools and an opportunity to prevent future errors.
A simple experiment was performed recently while tutoring a middle school student who was struggling in science. It was difficult for them to remember the steps of the scientific method in the correct order in which they are utilized. It turns out that he never had a chance to apply the steps and he had never done more than just read them in a book. A simple experiment was done and this made the scientific method and reasons for the various steps much easier to remember.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Why Is It Good To Be Wrong In The Scientific Sense?".
Observation: A website was used to observe the different sizes of craters on the moon. Notes were written down to describe them in terms of crater size and depth. Sketches were done as well.
Ask A Question: The question was asked about the weight of objects that must have struck the moon to create such large craters. The question was: Do heavier objects create larger and deeper craters than lighter objects? Will a heavier object strike the service of an object and leave deeper and larger indentations than an object that is smaller and lighter in weight?
Testable Hypothesis: If a larger, heavier object hits the surface of the moon, it will leave a larger and deeper crater than an object that is lighter and smaller.
Predict the Outcome: The heavier object will leave a deeper crater on the moon regardless of whether or not it is large or small in size.
Perform Your Experiment:
Materials: 4 cups of flour, 2 cups of sand, 2 cups of cold water, two balls of the same size- one solid & one hollow, medium sized foil pan, two rulers showing centimeters. 2 Yard sticks
Procedures: Materials will be gathered, weight will be recorded for the balls, 3 trials will be performed for each of two different objects striking the surface of a (manufactured) moon. Yard sticks will be used to measure the height from which the balls will fall to the moon surface. The heights are: 3 ft., 5 ft. and 8 ft. Measurements of crater sizes and depth will be recorded for each strike during the three trials for each object. Mix the flour and water into a paste. Add the sand. Add more water as needed. Create a malleable surface with the mixture in the foil pan to represent the moon’s surface. Record the weights of each ball.
Variables being tested: Weights of the balls, distance from which the balls are falling.
Constants: Size of the balls, surface upon which each ball is falling, heights (3, 5 and 8 ft.) from which each ball will fall during trials.
Record and Analyze the Results: The data was recorded in the form of a table and analyzed.
The heavy ball (HB) trials that fell from a distance of three feet made craters that were more shallow than the craters made from a height of six feet. The lighter ball (LB) trials made more shallow craters than the heavy balls when dropped from the same distances in each trial. The sizes of the craters were always larger when the balls were dropped from greater distances. This is true for both the HB and LB. There is a correlation between the depth of the crater and the distance from the starting point of the falling ball. The HB of the ball seemed to have caused a greater impact on surface damage than the LB. Sources of error: A fan was blowing at the time of the experiment on a desk across the room. It may have distorted the craters slightly which alters the measurements recorded for the crater size. Second error, the mixture used to create the moon was random. Online research for similar experiments should have been done so that a more cooperative mixture could have been used to create a better model of the moon’s surface.
Evaluate your Hypothesis: The hypothesis was proven to be correct. The heavier object left deeper craters in the moon surface. Limitations included: The moon surface changed in texture as the mixture began to dry. It was not as soft at the end of the experiment as it was in the beginning. The experiment does not and cannot mimic the same conditions that exist on the moon where gravity, sound and other intangible features are different than the environment where the experiment took place.
