Hypothesis?

Hypothesis. It’s a word that seems to be thrown around in science classrooms everywhere, but do you know what it really means? What if I told you that it’s meaning changes depending on the scientific method viewpoint you’re using? Even dictionary.com has several different definitions and I’m going to list them here.

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

4. a mere assumption or guess.

While these explanations make sense, they aren’t necessarily true or the way some people, especially some scientists would use the word. I had to rethink my idea of what a hypothesis was after reading the article “A Brief History of the Hypothesis” by David J. Glass and Ned Hall and having a class discussion about it.

Personally, I found the article, “A Brief History of the Hypothesis” to be very interesting. I had never really given much thought to the fact that we often use the same word, but give it different meanings based on the context that it’s used in. I think that most people outside of the science discipline believe that a hypothesis is simply a prediction about an experiment, but I’m learning that the word “hypothesis” is quite ambiguous. In one context, a hypothesis may mean a prediction, but in another model, a hypothesis might be replaced by a question.

                During the class discussion, I found the comparisons of the different scientific methods fascinating. The way I understand it, one model of the scientific method starts with an observation (or possibly a law) which leads to a hypothesis (or a model) which then leads to an experiment. The experiment can lead back to an observation, leaving one with a circular pattern. If an experiment has the same results repeatedly, a theory may be written. Until this theory is proven, it will remain a theory. This model of the scientific method uses the language of model rather than hypothesis and believes that the use of the word “hypothesis” is actually distorting it’s meaning. This model recognizes the feedback loop that is used to gather as much information as necessary for a complete understanding. People that use this model often describe the “hypothesis” as a model or question, make predictions, and use inductive reasoning. It seems to me as though this is the model most often used by scientists because the predictions can be modified which is not the case with the second model.

In the second scientific method (the mathematical model), the hypothesis is a statement that must be falsifiable. The hypothesis can lead to postulates. This method uses deductive reasoning and does not have a feedback loop. This system has a very cut and dry way of deciding if something is valid or not: If the postulate is valid, the hypothesis is valid. While this may seem simpler than the other method, it could also create many more problems. It doesn’t leave room for modification. If the hypothesis is invalid, one must start over.

After looking at and comparing the two models/definitions for hypotheses, I can definitely see why members of the scientific community use the model they do and don’t even typically use the word hypothesis. To be honest, I think that using the word hypothesis just makes things more confusing rather than clarifying them.

On a side note, I’d like to comment on the mention of philosophy in this article. I used to think that philosophy and science were two completely different topics, but after reading this article, I see how philosophy may have influenced science. I realize that many philosophers reject the idea of inductive reasoning, but I still think that science and philosophy could be related (or maybe I’m just interested in both and am trying to put the two together). I particularly liked the part about whether a chair is still the same chair if it is left in a room alone. The philosopher argued that one could not be sure that it is the same chair because there was no one there to observe it. Hume says that one cannot predict future happenings based on past experiences. While I agree that one cannot prove that something will be the same because of past occurrences, I disagree in saying that one cannot predict what will happen. One can make a prediction, but they cannot prove anything. I’ve learned that we do not prove anything in science, we can only disprove things. From my understanding, it seems as though philosophy does basically the same thing, if they even go so far as to actually disprove things.  Has science been influenced by philosophy? Has philosophy been influenced by science? Will they influence each other in the future? I will leave you to ponder these questions, but I hypothesize… or rather, predict that there is and always will be an interaction between the two.