To scientists: How often is your experimental hypothesis confirmed?

Question

I know research typically doesn't go the way you want, but how often would you say are you doing experiments where your result is not what you expected or completely different even?

Answer 1

Just to give you a context for my answer, I am a chemical engineer who has done research in both industry and academia. Most of my academic research has centered around theory and computer simulation, which is a sort of experminent in a sense (just a simulated one in this case.) Its hard to say how much of the time the experimental hypothesis is confirmed exactly. A fair portion of the time, I think we learn that our hypothesis was basically a good starting point -- it contained some of the correct explanation for what was occuring but lacked important aspects of the explanation. Sometimes is turns out that your hypothesis was an oversimplification. Then again, a fair amount of the time it may simply have been incorrect.

Its important to understand, though, that there is nothing 'wrong' with having made an incorrect hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely a jumping off point that gives a direction to your research. It tells you what exactly you should be testing, so to speak. Sometimes you can learn as much from disproving a hypothesis as from proving one. For examply, around the turn of the century and number of experiments were beginning to cast doubt on the purely classical vision of the universe built largely by Newton. These experiments paved the way for Einstein to build a new theory, which newer experiments have validated. However, this step could not have occured without the early experiments that countered the idea that Newton's theory is complete.

The main point here is that the value in science is the process. There is nothing wrong with a wrong hypothesis or theory, as long as you are willing to adjust or develop a new hypothesis or theory when experimental evidence warrants it. Essentially the entire prossess is theorize, test, adapt. By this means science is able to offer better and better explanations of the physical world.

Answer 2

It depends on what type of research is being done. For trying to find a totally new thing, the failure rate is quite high. Edison investigated lots of different materials for light bulb filaments before finding the right material.

Likewise, search for new antibiotics is rife with failure. Less than 10% of the candidate agents succeed in killing bacteria.

On other fronts, like confirming Einstein's theory of relativity, the track record is pretty good.

Astronomers use gravitational lensing predicted by relativity to "see around" intervening stars and galaxies to image what's behind them.

Answer 3

I think all the time scientis try to verified yur predictions...

All the time scientis are dooing models and probing it