Jump to content

Phrasing an hypothesis


CDarwin

Recommended Posts

Say you're framing an hypothesis for an experiment. Should you phrase the hypothesis so that it's a positive statement even if you personally expect to see a negative result?

 

For Example: "If I throw a lemur it will fly." I would expect for a lemur not to fly if I were to throw it, but should I phrase the hypothesis positively anyway for when it is to be tested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You state openly what you seek to show.

You then run the test.

You then either confirm or refute the opening hypothesis.

 

It's not an issue of phrasing it positive or negative, but what you anticipate happening before the experiment is performed. Hypotheses should be framed in such a way as to mandate their proof or disproof.

 

 

Now, there are some little caveats where you might try to "market" an idea by positioning your hypothesis a certain way, however, as a general rule this isn't appreciated by the scientific community, and you should state clearly what you seek to validate empirically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most a priori hypotheses that you want to subject to tests are phrased as null hypotheses. So your project my be "the analysis of flight aerodynamic properties of lemurs." In which you test the null hypothesis that lemurs will fly once thrown. Of course you need to define the parameters and then, after experiments you can accept or falsify the null hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
A good way to formulate a hypothesis is to write what you think will happen after a certain action.

 

Yes, this is a very good basis. Also, if your results go against your original thinking, be ready to explain why. Otherwise, create views as to why something happened.

 

It's not about being right or wrong. It's the idea of deconstructionism.

You take an idea in order to find truth. You eventually find out why your hypothesis is wrong and keep tweaking it and improving it. The hope is to come out with an eventual theory.

 

It's more of a process of elimination until you find the truth. In some academic scenarios, you have to act like you don't know the answer. You can form the hypothesis into a positive one if you know the answer, but you've still got to explain why something happened the way it did.

 

Another point to bring out its dependent in independent variables. This is one of those threads I seriously wish the philosophy board was still open for.

 

There are various ways of creating hypotheses. Look into them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can form the hypothesis into a positive one if you know the answer, but you've still got to explain why something happened the way it did.

 

Another point to bring out is dependent in independent variables. This is one of those threads I seriously wish the philosophy forum was still open for.

Why not discuss it here then? I would suggest that such discussion would not only benefit the OP, but also the general membership. I, too, would enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A good basic rule of thumb is to try to state positive experimental hypotheses, regardless of what you expect. Scientific method is set up to disprove hypotheses, which is a lot harder if they are negative (null).

 

If you expect a null result, then rejecting the experimental hypothesis will allow you to accept the null anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scientific method is set up to disprove hypotheses, which is a lot harder if they are negative (null).

 

Well, I'm sure this is the duty of science. It's done to make sure we're closer to the truth about something.

 

I'm not referring to the ad-hoc tweaking a Freudian would have done. However, was I wrong to say it's ok to tweak and improve upon a hypothesis? I'm pretty sure I wasn't, but I do understand your comment about people or a person later trying to disprove that hypothesis to test it's validity and strength.

 

I think that the lemur won't fly, but is what I think the same as how a hypothesis is phrased?

 

If I throw a lemur, it won't fly.

 

By using such a hypothesis, you imply various dependent and independent variables. What you ought to do is explicity express those variables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I throw a lemur, it won't fly.
That's a null hypothesis (predicting a null result). It's usually best to avoid these because null results are hard to interpret cleanly for a number of reasons.

 

If you predict the absence of an effect (a null hypothesis), then if you find the effect, you can simply reject the hypothesis. However, if you fail to find the effect, can you be said to have generated evidence in support of your hypothesis?

 

There are usually two possible explanations for a null result: either the effect really does not exist, or it does exist and your experiment just failed to find it. As you cannot be certain which applies, you can't really state anything concerning the results of your experiment with any degree of certainty.

 

If you hypothesise the existence of an effect (a positive experimental hypothesis), then if you do find an effect, you can state with some certainty that the effect exists. If you fail to find the effect, you can simply reject your experimental hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.