which one of the following statements is true of the discovery process?
960591
Based on what I read at the site given below, I'd say "B" is correct.
1115444
Discovery of the DNA structure.\n\nThe discovery of the DNA structure was the start of a new era in biology, leading, over the next two decades, to the cracking of the genetic code and the realization that DNA directs the synthesis of proteins. There were technical advances too, such as DNA sequencing, genetic engineering, and gene cloning. More recently, the complete sequences of many organisms have been solved - including the human genome in June 2000. The next 50 years of the DNA story will be all about realizing the practical benefits of Crick and Watson's discovery for humanity - in industry, medicine, food and agriculture.
1069794
Observation\n\nFormulation of Hypothesis\n\nExperimental verification of Hypothesis\n\nSubmission of Papers\n\nScientific Community acceptance\n\nGeneralisation of Laws and Theorems\n\nResults are reproducible.\n\nResults can be predicted.\n\nSubsequently, applications make the work useful to the masses.
1161132
Here is how science proves the existence of a Creator.\n\nYou are here: Science >> DNA Double Helix \n\nDNA Double Helix: A Recent Discovery of Enormous Complexity\nThe DNA Double Helix is one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. First described by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, DNA is the famous molecule of genetics that establishes each organism's physical characteristics. It wasn't until mid-2001, that the Human Genome Project and Celera Genomics jointly presented the true nature and complexity of the digital code inherent in DNA. We now understand that each human DNA molecule is comprised of chemical bases arranged in approximately 3 billion precise sequences. Even the DNA molecule for the single-celled bacterium, E. coli, contains enough information to fill all the books in any of the world's largest libraries. \n\nDNA Double Helix: The "Basics"\nDNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a double-stranded molecule that is twisted into a helix like a spiral staircase. Each strand is comprised of a sugar-phosphate backbone and numerous base chemicals attached in pairs. The four bases that make up the stairs in the spiraling staircase are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C) and guanine (G). These stairs act as the "letters" in the genetic alphabet, combining into complex sequences to form the words, sentences and paragraphs that act as instructions to guide the formation and functioning of the host cell. Maybe even more appropriately, the A, T, C and G in the genetic code of the DNA molecule can be compared to the "0" and "1" in the binary code of computer software. Like software to a computer, the DNA code is a genetic language that communicates information to the organic cell. \n\nThe DNA code, like a floppy disk of binary code, is quite simple in its basic paired structure. However, it's the sequencing and functioning of that code that's enormously complex. Through recent technologies like x-ray crystallography, we now know that the cell is not a "blob of protoplasm", but rather a microscopic marvel that is more complex than the space shuttle. The cell is very complicated, using vast numbers of phenomenally precise DNA instructions to control its every function. \n\nAlthough DNA code is remarkably complex, it's the information translation system connected to that code that really baffles science. Like any language, letters and words mean nothing outside the language convention used to give those letters and words meaning. This is modern information theory at its core. A simple binary example of information theory is the "Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." In that famous story, Mr. Revere asks a friend to put one light in the window of the North Church if the British came by land, and two lights if they came by sea. Without a shared language convention between Paul Revere and his friend, that simple communication effort would mean nothing. Well, take that simple example and multiply by a factor containing many zeros. \n\nWe now know that the DNA molecule is an intricate message system. To claim that DNA arose by random material forces is to say that information can arise by random material forces. Many scientists argue that the chemical building blocks of the DNA molecule can be explained by natural evolutionary processes. However, they must realize that the material base of a message is completely independent of the information transmitted. Thus, the chemical building blocks have nothing to do with the origin of the complex message. As a simple illustration, the information content of the clause "nature was designed" has nothing to do with the writing material used, whether ink, paint, chalk or crayon. In fact, the clause can be written in binary code, Morse code or smoke signals, but the message remains the same, independent of the medium. There is obviously no relationship between the information and the mater
1097999
The discovery of oxygen
645993
Exact chemical process...?\nNo one has yet discovered it completely\nBut they definetely are inching towards that secret...\nNevertheless what they so far have discoverd or will discover in future is only the chemical changes that happens 'when you love' but what I feel is more elusive is a question of 'what is this Love that makes these chemical changes in brain'...
309159
The discovery of the periodic table was based upon behavior as determined by the skeptical chymist.  A new element meant unique behavior on the part of the element and so the behavior was identified, and the element associated with it.
1158142
You do an experiment a lot and find that if shows the same thing every time, then you hand it over to other scientists and let them do the same thing until it beomes a theory. Then you continue doing that for a couple of years until if is shown that in all probability whatver you are trying to prove is true in all included cases and you have a law.
840619
Exploration and discovery
745178
What is known comes from experiment.
750823
Enough information should be presented in it to enable someone else to recreate the experiment.\n\nFor example, reaction, reaction mechanism, reagents, solvents, conditions, etc\n\nDon't assume that just because you'r reporting this to your instructor that you don't need to put the basic theoretical information such as the reaction.  The instructor is simply tryng to determine your level of knowledge, and to begin helping you understand the process of scientific writing.\n\nFor the best resource on this, check out the first link below by the American Chemical Society.  It will help you.
813276
Realistically? The search for knowledge has led to, or had a significant contribution to, the development of microwaves, radar, radio, superconductivity, computers, refridgeration, digital cameras, the internet and much more. When the theories that underpin most of these inventions were first discovered and tested, many people asked the same question - how does this help me? And then 20 years later some clever engineer invents a little box that heats up food. So give it time - almost every invention know to man once started as someone saying "I wonder how this works?"
546481
The things you truly learn are the things you "discover" on your own. It is hard to forget those things that you "discover" when you finally see how A and B are connected. You can't teach how to find that connection in a book - but you have to discover it.
719853
newton discovered it.but Einstein proved it is not.one day he photograph the stars continuously at one photograph it's slightly move in zig zag.
61658
This has to do with the idea of mathematical neoplatonism.  This philosophy holds that their are 'universal truths', including mathematical concepts, waiting to be discovered.  If that is the case, then mathematics is not just an invention of humans, and would have also been discovered by any other race in the universe capable of space travel.
706513
Maybe go vote on answers or read up on ones already resolved under discovery link.  If you don't mind losing some points then ask a couple questions, but I wouldn't go overboard with that if you're trying to make the next level & not retreat like some around town.  :)
668817
I think trial and error is a part of the scientific method. You think you know something. You do testing (trial) to see if it is true (possible error). If it isn't, you adjust you thinking and test again until you either prove or disprove your idea.