2006-09-20 12:05:54 · 7 answers · asked by shbob_kaka 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
if you made a procedural error, then no. an example of a case like this would be if you were supposed to measure the mass of a compound AFTER a reaction and accidently measured it before the reaction. This is basically a verifiably false data point.
if you did NOT make a procedural error then you DO keep the data point. an example of this case would be repeating the same experiment twenty times. One of your measurements, though taken in exactly the same procedure, comes out ten times higher than the other measurements, which are all pretty close together. This data point is called an outlier. while it doesnt "seem" to fit your data, you can't be entirely sure that it's wrong. as such, you include it in your final data for several reasons: it shouldn't actually effect your results that much if you took enough data points, it's a valid piece of data, and it might be useful to someone who is repeating your experiment in case they get similar results to the outlier of your experiment.
2006-09-20 12:07:23 · answer #1 · answered by promethius9594 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The data you call erroneous may be the key to a new discovery. Erroneous orbital measurements led to the discovery of planets. As you study the history of science, you'll find more examples.
2006-09-20 18:58:13 · answer #2 · answered by Frank N 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it is "erroneous" because of some accident on your part during collection, you can leave it out, but if it's just a data point or several that don't seem to "fit", then you can't leave it out because if you do, you will be "fabricating" the data, so it won't be science anymore!
2006-09-20 12:33:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you have to make an experiment to find something, how can you know what data is erroneous?
If you know for sure that some data is erroneous, fine leave it out.
If you only think that it is erroneous, you must leave it in. You can try to explain why you think it should be left out and then the reader can decide for themselves what to believe.
2006-09-20 12:12:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
All data should be include in your data chart and graph. It makes your expeiment reliable, valid, and the ability to retest all three important things in science.
2006-09-20 12:12:43 · answer #5 · answered by patricia b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The lead factoid grew to become into purely a typo. of direction, everybody and all of us may well be made to blame while accounting is defective. The workplace of administration and value selection is finding into misreporting of jobs. The restoration people sense they are just to blame for conserving tax payer funds from fraud. “issues like beside the point congressional districts have not have been given any result on our ability to try against waste, fraud and abuse,” mentioned Devaney, chairman of the restoration accountability and Transparency Board.
2016-10-01 04:49:22 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ingrity.
Science is not 100% infallible.
2006-09-20 12:08:16 · answer #7 · answered by Radiosonde 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋