The problem with research is the wrong generalization.

The purpose of research is to give new information about the focus. If research is well-made made by following empiric methodology. Those results can be generalized to almost similar cases. But sometimes when we are starting to generalize research results. We face the case that people are trying to generalize research results to the wrong objects.

The results that the research give can be generalized to cases and subjects that are similar to the original research. The thing that is seen very often is that things like example research or theories about quantum physics tried to suit psychology. Maybe that thing was a bad example, but let me explain this problem by using games. 

Chess and poker are both games. But we cannot play chess with poker rules. Of course, we can replace the missing chess button with a king by using the playing card king. And move the playing card on the chess board like that missing button. But still, we must follow the chess rules. But otherwise thinking, we cannot replace missing playing cards by using the chess button. 

This is the thing in research. Some cases that seem ridiculous are possible. Even if they look complicated or uncomfortable. But then we must be careful. We should not generalize things like "black swans". The term black swan means the extremely extraordinary but possible case. 

Even if somebody doesn't succeed in some research that thing is not making the thing impossible. Maybe that researcher didn't have time or enough information about the phenomenon that affects to research and results. Or they didn't have technology that makes it possible to control test conditions. 

So even if something was impossible in the past. That thing can be possible by using modern technology. 

In some extreme examples, meteorite drops to the laboratory table. And that thing causes very extraordinary results. The thing is that this kind of case is very uncommon. But they are possible. There is the possibility that this meteorite doesn't affect the research at all. 

Sometimes we are facing cases where people are standardizing extraordinary. Sometimes we have seen articles that are handling things like researchers or research. If we are reading only those articles, we can think that researchers like physicists are the most common people in the world. They might work in some research teams and they know only other researchers. 

The typical case doesn't mean that all cases in the group are similar. If we are returning to UFOs we must realize that even if NASA has no UFO in Cape Canaveral, that doesn't mean that there cannot be UFOs in other places on earth. 

That means some case doesn't close some other cases away. When we are trying to find a typical case we must realize one thing. We must find every data that was used in the original case. Let's take an example from chemistry. 

Things like temperature and used materials affect the research of the results of chemical experiments. If the original researcher used platinum electrodes in the original test, and we use them to cut the electric wire, and we didn't even wash them. Before we put those wires into the test tube, we can ask, are those tests similar? Or if the original researcher used a special laboratory where the temperature was something, let's say as an example -120 Celsius

And in the test used noble gas as a protective gas in a fully controlled chemical environment where is no oxygen. Then the original researcher used a laser that gave highly accurate energy impulses to that test. And we use some test tubes and handle on our kitchen counter and try to make the same results, we can ask are those conditions same.