The main characteristics of a good hypothesis.
@Ahed Alkhatib:...I think such hypotheses do not generate new ideas.
In the beginning, a hypothesis expresses (sometimes informally) an intuition about some phenomenon. In its initial state, a hypothesis, will sometimes be, as Vitaly has mentioned, a simple statement. After all, it is an intuition that is first expressed in a hypothesis.
After writing down the intuition, then it is necessary to become to be more formal. At that point, it helps to use mathematics to rewrite the initial hypothesis.
It is definitely the case that a well-formulated hypothesis at the intuitive level leads to refinement and the search for a good way to express a hypothesis mathematically. That search can lead to new ideas.
Very generally and concisely, an effective hypothesis should be firmly based on accepted knowledge, state a strong idea interesting enough to be studied further, and (most importantly) be easily falsified, so that fellows can publish unquestionable results.
After this scientific process someone can elaborate a new hypothesis, which is hopefully as effective as the one just falsified. That's the course (some say the curse) of science.
By good hypothesis, do you mean a statistical hypothesis that is non-rejectable? In fact, when a statistical hypothesis is tested based on observed data, it is done keeping in view whether it can be rejected. If it is found to be rejectable, we go for framing another that perhaps may be found to be non-rejectable. As soon as a hypothesis is found to be non-rejectable, we say that there is no reason to reject it at some predetermined probability level of significance. The idea is to get some idea about the underlying situation.
Your question is not very clear. There are four types of hypothesis; a statistical hypothesis is one of those four types.
Hypotheses are placed in almost every field of science.
It could be argued that the hypothesis is an important part of scientific research, because - in general - ordering and systematizing my work, and - in particular - makes transparent the nature of these studies.
In my view, the starting point for setting a sound scientific hypothesis are accurate literature study of problem interesting for me.
In my opinion, the main characteristic would be to have the enough tools to demonstrate it.
1)Simplicity: the simplest that can be setup
2)Effectiveness: able to solve an unsolved problem
3)Self confident: not to produce self contradictory results
That is and good luck!
The key characteristic of a good hypothesis is the ability to derive predictions from this hypothesis about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.
In addition to what has been mentioned by Michael, Hermanta, Andrzej and Carles,
there are a couple of things to consider:
1. Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. That is, the physical universe is mathematics in a well-defined sense, and "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations may be considered equally real. Tegmark elaborates the MUH into the Computable Universe Hypothesis (CUH), which posits that all computable mathematical structures exist.
The theory can be considered a form of Pythagoreanism or Platonism in that it posits the existence of mathematical entities; a form of mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects; and a formal expression of ontic structural realism.
There seems to be widespread agreement that nature (physical universe) is mathematics.
In that case, any hypothesis concerning nature would be corollary of Tegmark's MUH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
2. A good hypothesis should not only be verifiable, it should also lead to other hypotheses. In effect, a good hypothesis should have one-many relation to other hypotheses and corresponding discoveries.
In some fields, a good hypothesis seems to be one that could be both stated and tested within one theoretical-methodological framework.
Inspiring question; accordingly, inspiring answers.
For clinical research - a good hypothesis should conform to the PICO/T convention - in stating within it:
P - population
I - intervention
C - comparitor
O - outcome
T - timeframe
@Ahed Alkhatib:...I think such hypotheses do not generate new ideas.
In the beginning, a hypothesis expresses (sometimes informally) an intuition about some phenomenon. In its initial state, a hypothesis, will sometimes be, as Vitaly has mentioned, a simple statement. After all, it is an intuition that is first expressed in a hypothesis.
After writing down the intuition, then it is necessary to become to be more formal. At that point, it helps to use mathematics to rewrite the initial hypothesis.
It is definitely the case that a well-formulated hypothesis at the intuitive level leads to refinement and the search for a good way to express a hypothesis mathematically. That search can lead to new ideas.
IMHO, a good hypothesis is one which, if true, contributes to the system of ideas of the discipline. It is testable (eg by experiments or other analysis) and potentially refutable (by the designed tests). A hypothesis failed to be refuted by repeated attempts is then promoted to a "theory".
Generally speaking, for applied research, an hypothesis has the following characteristics:
1. It must provide a reasonable explanation for the event that has occurred or will occur.
2. It must be consistent with prior research or observations.
3. It must be stated clearly and concisely.
4. It must be testable via the collection and analysis of data.
If you use this, please cite:
Terrell, S. (2012). Statistics translated: a step-by-step guide to analyzing and interpreting data. New York: Guilford Press.
A very nice answer to the original question is given by Henri Poincaré in "La science et l'hypothèse" (1902).
http://www.ebooksgratuits.com/pdf/poincare_science_hypothese.pdf
In his introduction, Poincaré wrote :
"Nous verrons aussi qu’il y a plusieurs sortes d’hypothèses, que les unes sont vérifiables et qu’une fois confirmées par l’expérience, elles deviennent des vérités fécondes ; que les autres, sans pouvoir nous induire en erreur, peuvent nous être utiles en fixant notre pensée, que d’autres enfin ne sont des hypothèses qu’en apparence et se réduisent à des définitions ou à des conventions déguisées."
A quick translation of the above text gives:
"We shall also see that there are several kinds of hypotheses, that some are verifiable and once confirmed by experiment, they become fruitful truths ; that others, without being able to mislead us, can be helpful in determining our thinking; that others still are hypotheses only in appearance and reduce to definitions or disguised conventions."
See particularly Chap. 9 starting at page 139.
Dear H.E.,
A great quote (apropos) from a great book! You are correct. What Poincare writes about various types of hypotheses directly addresses the question for this thread.
We can take what Poincare wrote about verifiable hypotheses a step further. A good hypothesis can lead to theorems that clarify the results obtained from verifying the hypothesis. A classic example of this sort of yield from a good hypothesis can be seen in Cauchy's discovery of limits as a way to escape the infinitessimals that Leibniz and others introduced initially to solve volume and motion problems (i.e., problems in optics and physics).
Hi James,
It is indeed an outstanding book.
Actually, the part I like most does not concern verifiable hypotheses. Nonetheless, I believe it is still relevant to the question of this thread. The following is an attempt to make an approximate translation of the idea discussed at page 148 where Poincaré talks about a hypothesis that fails experimental testing.
"It goes without saying that we must reject it without a second thought. That's what we do in general, but sometimes with some bad mood. Well, this bad mood is not justified, the physicist who has just abandoned one of its assumptions should be, on the contrary, full of joy, because he has found an unexpected opportunity for discovery. His assumption, I suppose, had not been adopted lightly. He had taken into account all known factors that appeared to be involved in the phenomenon. If the verification has failed that would mean there is something unexpected, something extraordinary, and thus we are getting to the unknown and the new.
Was the overturned hypothesis sterile ? On the contrary. In fact, we can say that it was more beneficial than a verified hypothesis. Not only has it offered the opportunity to make a decisive experiment, but also, had we made this same experiment serendipitously, without the initial hypothesis, we would not have benefited from its result, we would not have seen anything extraordinary, we would have merely recorded the result without deducting any interesting consequence." (H. Poincaré, 1902)
Dear H.E.,
Great post!
The issue of the failed hypothesis is very important. The issue here is whether a failed hypothesis takes us in a new direction or is a dead end.
First approach: A failed hypothesis takes us in a new direction, since we not only need to find out why the hypothesis failed but also we need to the possibility of revising the failed hypothesis. By revising the failed hypothesis, we are, in effect, moving in a new direction. For example, at one time long ago it was thought the earth was the centre of the universe (before Galileo). Thanks to Galileo's work, the view of our world was turned upside down.
Here are other examples:
Aristotle: nothing new could appear in the heavens. Disproved by Galileo.
Usher, 1650: the earth is 5,654 years old. Disproved by Charles Lyell, 1830.
Thomas Malthus: populations tend to increase geometrically unless constrained.
Darwin, 1859: All creatures descended from a common ancestor.
Second approach: From a failed hypothesis, take a theory is a new direction that essentially contradicts the failed hypothesis.
For more details, see the attached pdf file.
Dear Abdulvahed,
The question for this post is excellent! It has led us long many interesting paths. It is as @Elton Li has suggested: good hypotheses provide seeds for thought and contribute to the system of ideas for a discipline. And examples of hypotheses such as the four colour problem mentioned by @Vitaly Voloshin carry the discussion forward in a very good way.
What would you say about the differences between a conjecture and a hypothesis?
Dear James
Thank you for your answers and your nice question!
I think a conjecture is just a "conjecture", while a hypothesis is based on scientific information and memories and has the ability to direct the research.
Any hypothesis can be a conjecture, but any conjecture is not necessarily a hypothesis.
What would you think?
The main characteristics of the hypothesis are as below.
The most important condition for a valid hypothesis is that it should be empirically verified. A hypothesis ultimately has to confirm or refuge, otherwise, it will remain more supposition I,e it must be capable empirically tested under the condition of available technique.
The hypothesis should state the relationship between variable.
The hypothesis should state the relationship between variable.
The hypothesis should be limited in scope and must be specified.
The hypothesis should be limited clear, definite and non-ambiguous.
The hypothesis should be stated as far as possible in most simple language so that someone easily understands by all concern.
It is desirable that hypothesis is selected must be in continuation with the theory already involved I,e the hypothesis selected should be related to the body of a theory.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology