features of a falsifiable hypothesis

Karl Popper: Theory of Falsification

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Karl Popper’s theory of falsification contends that scientific inquiry should aim not to verify hypotheses but to rigorously test and identify conditions under which they are false. For a theory to be valid according to falsification, it must produce hypotheses that have the potential to be proven incorrect by observable evidence or experimental results. Unlike verification, falsification focuses on categorically disproving theoretical predictions rather than confirming them.

• Karl Popper believed that scientific knowledge is provisional – the best we can do at the moment.
• Popper is known for his attempt to refute the classical positivist account of the scientific method by replacing induction with the falsification principle.
• The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.
• For example, the hypothesis that “all swans are white” can be falsified by observing a black swan.
• For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses.

Theory of Falsification

Karl Popper is prescriptive and describes what science should do (not how it actually behaves). Popper is a rationalist and contended that the central question in the philosophy of science was distinguishing science from non-science.

Karl Popper, in ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ emerged as a major critic of inductivism, which he saw as an essentially old-fashioned strategy.

Popper replaced the classical observationalist-inductivist account of the scientific method with falsification (i.e., deductive logic) as the criterion for distinguishing scientific theory from non-science.

All inductive evidence is limited: we do not observe the universe at all times and in all places. We are not justified, therefore, in making a general rule from this observation of particulars.

According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions that can be tested, and the theory should be rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct.

He argued that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism.

Popper gives the following example:

Europeans, for thousands of years had observed millions of white swans. Using inductive evidence, we could come up with the theory that all swans are white.

However, exploration of Australasia introduced Europeans to black swans.  Poppers’ point is this: no matter how many observations are made which confirm a theory, there is always the possibility that a future observation could refute it.  Induction cannot yield certainty.

Karl Popper was also critical of the naive empiricist view that we objectively observe the world. Popper argued that all observation is from a point of view, and indeed that all observation is colored by our understanding. The world appears to us in the context of theories we already hold: it is ‘theory-laden.’

Popper proposed an alternative scientific method based on falsification.  However, many confirming instances exist for a theory; it only takes one counter-observation to falsify it. Science progresses when a theory is shown to be wrong and a new theory is introduced that better explains the phenomena.

For Popper, the scientist should attempt to disprove his/her theory rather than attempt to prove it continually. Popper does think that science can help us progressively approach the truth, but we can never be certain that we have the final explanation.

Critical Evaluation

Popper’s first major contribution to philosophy was his novel solution to the problem of the demarcation of science. According to the time-honored view, science, properly so-called, is distinguished by its inductive method – by its characteristic use of observation and experiment, as opposed to purely logical analysis, to establish its results.

The great difficulty was that no run of favorable observational data, however long and unbroken, is logically sufficient to establish the truth of an unrestricted generalization.

Popper’s astute formulations of logical procedure helped to reign in the excessive use of inductive speculation upon inductive speculation, and also helped to strengthen the conceptual foundation for today’s peer review procedures.

However, the history of science gives little indication of having followed anything like a methodological falsificationist approach.

Indeed, and as many studies have shown, scientists of the past (and still today) tended to be reluctant to give up theories that we would have to call falsified in the methodological sense, and very often, it turned out that they were correct to do so (seen from our later perspective).

The history of science shows that sometimes it is best to ’stick to one’s guns’. For example, “In the early years of its life, Newton’s gravitational theory was falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit”

Also, one observation does not falsify a theory. The experiment may have been badly designed; data could be incorrect.

Quine states that a theory is not a single statement; it is a complex network (a collection of statements). You might falsify one statement (e.g., all swans are white) in the network, but this should not mean you should reject the whole complex theory.

Critics of Karl Popper, chiefly Thomas Kuhn , Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos, rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies to all science and could account for its progress.

Popperp, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery . University Press.

Further Information

• Thomas Kuhn – Paradigm Shift Is Psychology a Science?
• Steps of the Scientific Method
• Positivism in Sociology: Definition, Theory & Examples
• The Scientific Revolutions of Thomas Kuhn: Paradigm Shifts Explained

• Foundations
• Write Paper

Search form

• Experiments
• Anthropology
• Self-Esteem
• Social Anxiety
• Foundations >
• Reasoning >

Falsifiability

Karl popper's basic scientific principle, karl popper's basic scientific principle.

Falsifiability, according to the philosopher Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.

This article is a part of the guide:

• Inductive Reasoning
• Deductive Reasoning
• Hypothetico-Deductive Method
• Scientific Reasoning
• Testability

Browse Full Outline

• 1 Scientific Reasoning
• 2.1 Falsifiability
• 2.2 Verification Error
• 2.3 Testability
• 2.4 Post Hoc Reasoning
• 3 Deductive Reasoning
• 4.1 Raven Paradox
• 5 Causal Reasoning
• 6 Abductive Reasoning
• 7 Defeasible Reasoning

Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the universe we live in. Indeed, ancient philosophy can be understood as the originator of many of the separate fields of study we have today, including psychology, medicine, law, astronomy, art and even theology.

Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are interested in understanding what factors determine the validity of scientific endeavors in the first place.

Whilst most scientists work within established paradigms, philosophers question the paradigms themselves and try to explore our underlying assumptions and definitions behind the logic of how we seek knowledge. Thus there is a feedback relationship between science and philosophy - and sometimes plenty of tension!

One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any scientific hypothesis and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it.

What is Falsifiability?

Falsifiability is the assertion that for any hypothesis to have credence, it must be inherently disprovable before it can become accepted as a scientific hypothesis or theory.

For example, someone might claim "the earth is younger than many scientists state, and in fact was created to appear as though it was older through deceptive fossils etc.” This is a claim that is unfalsifiable because it is a theory that can never be shown to be false. If you were to present such a person with fossils, geological data or arguments about the nature of compounds in the ozone, they could refute the argument by saying that your evidence was fabricated to appeared that way, and isn’t valid.

Importantly, falsifiability doesn’t mean that there are currently arguments against a theory, only that it is possible to imagine some kind of argument which would invalidate it. Falsifiability says nothing about an argument's inherent validity or correctness. It is only the minimum trait required of a claim that allows it to be engaged with in a scientific manner – a dividing line between what is considered science and what isn’t. Another important point is that falsifiability is not any claim that has yet to be proven true. After all, a conjecture that hasn’t been proven yet is just a hypothesis.

The idea is that no theory is completely correct , but if it can be shown both to be falsifiable  and supported with evidence that shows it's true, it can be accepted as truth.

For example, Newton's Theory of Gravity was accepted as truth for centuries, because objects do not randomly float away from the earth. It appeared to fit the data obtained by experimentation and research , but was always subject to testing.

However, Einstein's theory makes falsifiable predictions that are different from predictions made by Newton's theory, for example concerning the precession of the orbit of Mercury, and gravitational lensing of light. In non-extreme situations Einstein's and Newton's theories make the same predictions, so they are both correct. But Einstein's theory holds true in a superset of the conditions in which Newton's theory holds, so according to the principle of Occam's Razor , Einstein's theory is preferred. On the other hand, Newtonian calculations are simpler, so Newton's theory is useful for almost any engineering project, including some space projects. But for GPS we need Einstein's theory. Scientists would not have arrived at either of these theories, or a compromise between both of them, without the use of testable, falsifiable experiments. 

Popper saw falsifiability as a black and white definition; that if a theory is falsifiable, it is scientific , and if not, then it is unscientific. Whilst some "pure" sciences do adhere to this strict criterion, many fall somewhere between the two extremes, with  pseudo-sciences  falling at the extreme end of being unfalsifiable. 

Pseudoscience

According to Popper, many branches of applied science, especially social science, are not truly scientific because they have no potential for falsification.

Anthropology and sociology, for example, often use case studies to observe people in their natural environment without actually testing any specific hypotheses or theories.

While such studies and ideas are not falsifiable, most would agree that they are scientific because they significantly advance human knowledge.

Popper had and still has his fair share of critics, and the question of how to demarcate legitimate scientific enquiry can get very convoluted. Some statements are logically falsifiable but not practically falsifiable – consider the famous example of “it will rain at this location in a million years' time.” You could absolutely conceive of a way to test this claim, but carrying it out is a different story.

Thus, falsifiability is not a simple black and white matter. The Raven Paradox shows the inherent danger of relying on falsifiability, because very few scientific experiments can measure all of the data, and necessarily rely upon generalization . Technologies change along with our aims and comprehension of the phenomena we study, and so the falsifiability criterion for good science is subject to shifting.

For many sciences, the idea of falsifiability is a useful tool for generating theories that are testable and realistic. Testability is a crucial starting point around which to design solid experiments that have a chance of telling us something useful about the phenomena in question. If a falsifiable theory is tested and the results are significant , then it can become accepted as a scientific truth.

The advantage of Popper's idea is that such truths can be falsified when more knowledge and resources are available. Even long accepted theories such as Gravity, Relativity and Evolution are increasingly challenged and adapted.

The major disadvantage of falsifiability is that it is very strict in its definitions and does not take into account the contributions of sciences that are observational and descriptive .

• Psychology 101
• Flags and Countries
• Capitals and Countries

Martyn Shuttleworth , Lyndsay T Wilson (Sep 21, 2008). Falsifiability. Retrieved May 07, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/falsifiability

You Are Allowed To Copy The Text

The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .

This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.

That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Save this course for later.

Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.

Footer bottom

• Privacy Policy

• Subscribe to our RSS Feed
• Like us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

2.4: Developing a Hypothesis

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 16104

Learning Objectives

• Distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis.
• Discover how theories are used to generate hypotheses and how the results of studies can be used to further inform theories.
• Understand the characteristics of a good hypothesis.

Theories and Hypotheses

Before describing how to develop a hypothesis it is important to distinguish between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory is a coherent explanation or interpretation of one or more phenomena. Although theories can take a variety of forms, one thing they have in common is that they go beyond the phenomena they explain by including variables, structures, processes, functions, or organizing principles that have not been observed directly. Consider, for example, Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation and social inhibition. He proposed that being watched by others while performing a task creates a general state of physiological arousal, which increases the likelihood of the dominant (most likely) response. So for highly practiced tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make correct responses, but for relatively unpracticed tasks, being watched increases the tendency to make incorrect responses. Notice that this theory—which has come to be called drive theory—provides an explanation of both social facilitation and social inhibition that goes beyond the phenomena themselves by including concepts such as “arousal” and “dominant response,” along with processes such as the effect of arousal on the dominant response.

Outside of science, referring to an idea as a theory often implies that it is untested—perhaps no more than a wild guess. In science, however, the term theory has no such implication. A theory is simply an explanation or interpretation of a set of phenomena. It can be untested, but it can also be extensively tested, well supported, and accepted as an accurate description of the world by the scientific community. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, is a theory because it is an explanation of the diversity of life on earth—not because it is untested or unsupported by scientific research. On the contrary, the evidence for this theory is overwhelmingly positive and nearly all scientists accept its basic assumptions as accurate. Similarly, the “germ theory” of disease is a theory because it is an explanation of the origin of various diseases, not because there is any doubt that many diseases are caused by microorganisms that infect the body.

A hypothesis , on the other hand, is a specific prediction about a new phenomenon that should be observed if a particular theory is accurate. It is an explanation that relies on just a few key concepts. Hypotheses are often specific predictions about what will happen in a particular study. They are developed by considering existing evidence and using reasoning to infer what will happen in the specific context of interest. Hypotheses are often but not always derived from theories. So a hypothesis is often a prediction based on a theory but some hypotheses are a-theoretical and only after a set of observations have been made, is a theory developed. This is because theories are broad in nature and they explain larger bodies of data. So if our research question is really original then we may need to collect some data and make some observation before we can develop a broader theory.

Theories and hypotheses always have this if-then relationship. “ If drive theory is correct, then cockroaches should run through a straight runway faster, and a branching runway more slowly, when other cockroaches are present.” Although hypotheses are usually expressed as statements, they can always be rephrased as questions. “Do cockroaches run through a straight runway faster when other cockroaches are present?” Thus deriving hypotheses from theories is an excellent way of generating interesting research questions.

But how do researchers derive hypotheses from theories? One way is to generate a research question using the techniques discussed in this chapter and then ask whether any theory implies an answer to that question. For example, you might wonder whether expressive writing about positive experiences improves health as much as expressive writing about traumatic experiences. Although this question is an interesting one on its own, you might then ask whether the habituation theory—the idea that expressive writing causes people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings—implies an answer. In this case, it seems clear that if the habituation theory is correct, then expressive writing about positive experiences should not be effective because it would not cause people to habituate to negative thoughts and feelings. A second way to derive hypotheses from theories is to focus on some component of the theory that has not yet been directly observed. For example, a researcher could focus on the process of habituation—perhaps hypothesizing that people should show fewer signs of emotional distress with each new writing session.

Among the very best hypotheses are those that distinguish between competing theories. For example, Norbert Schwarz and his colleagues considered two theories of how people make judgments about themselves, such as how assertive they are (Schwarz et al., 1991) [1] . Both theories held that such judgments are based on relevant examples that people bring to mind. However, one theory was that people base their judgments on the number of examples they bring to mind and the other was that people base their judgments on how easily they bring those examples to mind. To test these theories, the researchers asked people to recall either six times when they were assertive (which is easy for most people) or 12 times (which is difficult for most people). Then they asked them to judge their own assertiveness. Note that the number-of-examples theory implies that people who recalled 12 examples should judge themselves to be more assertive because they recalled more examples, but the ease-of-examples theory implies that participants who recalled six examples should judge themselves as more assertive because recalling the examples was easier. Thus the two theories made opposite predictions so that only one of the predictions could be confirmed. The surprising result was that participants who recalled fewer examples judged themselves to be more assertive—providing particularly convincing evidence in favor of the ease-of-retrieval theory over the number-of-examples theory.

Theory Testing

The primary way that scientific researchers use theories is sometimes called the hypothetico-deductive method (although this term is much more likely to be used by philosophers of science than by scientists themselves). A researcher begins with a set of phenomena and either constructs a theory to explain or interpret them or chooses an existing theory to work with. He or she then makes a prediction about some new phenomenon that should be observed if the theory is correct. Again, this prediction is called a hypothesis. The researcher then conducts an empirical study to test the hypothesis. Finally, he or she reevaluates the theory in light of the new results and revises it if necessary. This process is usually conceptualized as a cycle because the researcher can then derive a new hypothesis from the revised theory, conduct a new empirical study to test the hypothesis, and so on. As Figure 2.2 shows, this approach meshes nicely with the model of scientific research in psychology presented earlier in the textbook—creating a more detailed model of “theoretically motivated” or “theory-driven” research.

As an example, let us consider Zajonc’s research on social facilitation and inhibition. He started with a somewhat contradictory pattern of results from the research literature. He then constructed his drive theory, according to which being watched by others while performing a task causes physiological arousal, which increases an organism’s tendency to make the dominant response. This theory predicts social facilitation for well-learned tasks and social inhibition for poorly learned tasks. He now had a theory that organized previous results in a meaningful way—but he still needed to test it. He hypothesized that if his theory was correct, he should observe that the presence of others improves performance in a simple laboratory task but inhibits performance in a difficult version of the very same laboratory task. To test this hypothesis, one of the studies he conducted used cockroaches as subjects (Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman, 1969) [2] . The cockroaches ran either down a straight runway (an easy task for a cockroach) or through a cross-shaped maze (a difficult task for a cockroach) to escape into a dark chamber when a light was shined on them. They did this either while alone or in the presence of other cockroaches in clear plastic “audience boxes.” Zajonc found that cockroaches in the straight runway reached their goal more quickly in the presence of other cockroaches, but cockroaches in the cross-shaped maze reached their goal more slowly when they were in the presence of other cockroaches. Thus he confirmed his hypothesis and provided support for his drive theory. (Zajonc also showed that drive theory existed in humans (Zajonc & Sales, 1966) [3] in many other studies afterward).

Incorporating Theory into Your Research

When you write your research report or plan your presentation, be aware that there are two basic ways that researchers usually include theory. The first is to raise a research question, answer that question by conducting a new study, and then offer one or more theories (usually more) to explain or interpret the results. This format works well for applied research questions and for research questions that existing theories do not address. The second way is to describe one or more existing theories, derive a hypothesis from one of those theories, test the hypothesis in a new study, and finally reevaluate the theory. This format works well when there is an existing theory that addresses the research question—especially if the resulting hypothesis is surprising or conflicts with a hypothesis derived from a different theory.

To use theories in your research will not only give you guidance in coming up with experiment ideas and possible projects, but it lends legitimacy to your work. Psychologists have been interested in a variety of human behaviors and have developed many theories along the way. Using established theories will help you break new ground as a researcher, not limit you from developing your own ideas.

Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

There are three general characteristics of a good hypothesis. First, a good hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable . We must be able to test the hypothesis using the methods of science and if you’ll recall Popper’s falsifiability criterion, it must be possible to gather evidence that will disconfirm the hypothesis if it is indeed false. Second, a good hypothesis must be logical. As described above, hypotheses are more than just a random guess. Hypotheses should be informed by previous theories or observations and logical reasoning. Typically, we begin with a broad and general theory and use deductive reasoning to generate a more specific hypothesis to test based on that theory. Occasionally, however, when there is no theory to inform our hypothesis, we use inductive reasoning which involves using specific observations or research findings to form a more general hypothesis. Finally, the hypothesis should be positive. That is, the hypothesis should make a positive statement about the existence of a relationship or effect, rather than a statement that a relationship or effect does not exist. As scientists, we don’t set out to show that relationships do not exist or that effects do not occur so our hypotheses should not be worded in a way to suggest that an effect or relationship does not exist. The nature of science is to assume that something does not exist and then seek to find evidence to prove this wrong, to show that really it does exist. That may seem backward to you but that is the nature of the scientific method. The underlying reason for this is beyond the scope of this chapter but it has to do with statistical theory.

Key Takeaways

• A theory is broad in nature and explains larger bodies of data. A hypothesis is more specific and makes a prediction about the outcome of a particular study.
• Working with theories is not “icing on the cake.” It is a basic ingredient of psychological research.
• Like other scientists, psychologists use the hypothetico-deductive method. They construct theories to explain or interpret phenomena (or work with existing theories), derive hypotheses from their theories, test the hypotheses, and then reevaluate the theories in light of the new results.
• Practice: Find a recent empirical research report in a professional journal. Read the introduction and highlight in different colors descriptions of theories and hypotheses.
• Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61 , 195–202.
• Zajonc, R. B., Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13 , 83–92.
• Zajonc, R.B. & Sales, S.M. (1966). Social facilitation of dominant and subordinate responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2 , 160-168.

5 Falsifiability

Textbook chapters (or similar texts).

• Deductive Logic
• Persuasive Reasoning and Fallacies
• The Falsifiability Criterion of Science
• Understanding Science

Journal articles

• Why a Confirmation Strategy Dominates Psychological Science

*******************************************************

Inquiry-based Activity:  Popular media and falsifiability

Introduction : Falsifiability, or the ability for a statement/theory to be shown to be false, was noted by Karl Popper to be the clearest way to distinguish science from pseudoscience. While incredibly important to scientific inquiry, it is also important for students to understand how this criterion can be applied to the news and information they interact with in their day-to-day lives. In this activity, students will apply the logic of falsifiability to rumors and news they have heard of in the popular media, demonstrating the applicability of scientific thinking to the world beyond the classroom.

Question to pose to students : Think about the latest celebrity rumor you have heard about in the news or through social media. If you cannot think of one, some examples might include, “the CIA killed Marilyn Monroe” and “Tupac is alive.” Have students get into groups, discuss their rumors, and select one to work with.

Note to instructors: Please modify/update these examples if needed to work for the students in your course. Snopes is a good source for recent examples.

Students form a hypothesis : Thinking about that rumor, decide what evidence would be necessary to prove that it was correct. That is, imagine you were a skeptic and automatically did not believe the rumor – what would someone need to tell or show you to convince you that it was true?

Students test their hypotheses : Each group (A) should then pair up with one other group (B) and try to convince them their rumor is true, providing them with the evidence from above. Members of group B should then come up with any reasons they can think of why the rumor may still be false. For example – if “Tupac is alive” is the rumor and “show the death certificate” is a piece of evidence provided by group A, group B could posit that the death certificate was forged by whoever kidnapped Tupac. Once group B has evaluated all of group A’s evidence, have the groups switch such that group B is now trying to convince group A about their rumor.

Do the students’ hypotheses hold up? : Together, have the groups work out whether the rumors they discussed are falsifiable. That is, can it be “proven?” Remember, a claim is non-falsifiable if there can always be an explanation for the absence of evidence and/or an exhaustive search for evidence would be required. Depending on the length of your class, students can repeat the previous step with multiple groups.

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

The Discovery of the Falsifiability Principle

• First Online: 01 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Friedel Weinert 2  

Part of the book series: Springer Biographies ((SPRINGERBIOGS))

253 Accesses

Popper is most famous for his principle of falsifiability . It is striking that, throughout his career, he used three terms synonymously: falsifiability , refutability and testability . In order to appreciate the importance of these criteria it is helpful to understand how he arrived at these notions, whether they can be used interchangeably and whether scientists find this terminology helpful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

In a letter (30/11/32) to the publisher Paul Buske, Popper mentioned that J. Kraft had proposed two alternative titles: either ‘The Philosophical Preconditions of Natural Science’ or ‘The Problem of Natural Laws’ [Hansen 3.2; my translation]. Buske was one of the publishers on whom Popper pinned his hopes. Hacohen (2000): Chap. 6 provides a detailed account of the tortuous path of Popper’s manuscript to its publication as Logik der Forschung . See also Autobiography (1974): 67.

Gomperz realized that Popper’s book criticized the Vienna Circle, as he wrote to Popper (27/12/32). In a reference letter (21/12/32) to the publisher Paul Siebeck (of J. C. B. Mohr), Gomperz praised Popper’s book for propounding, in clear language, a ‘methodology of scientific knowledge’, which remained close to the ‘procedure of the mathematical natural sciences’ and differed essentially from that of the Vienna Circle [Hansen 3.2; my translation].

Walter Schiff, Popper’s maternal uncle, taught economics and statistics at the University of Vienna.

Schlick was murdered by a former student on 22 June, 1936, as he was leaving the university. In an undated handwritten note ‘In Honour of Moritz Schlick’ Popper conveyed the general impression at the time that he had been murdered by a Nazi [252.01], which is probably true.

In 1977, Stachel became the first editor of the Einstein Papers Project, then based at Boston University.

See, for instance, his Outline of Psychoanalysis (1938) and my discussion in Copernicus , Darwin and Freud (2009: Chap. 3).

The others were the perihelion advance of Mercury and the redshift of light in gravitational fields. In 1964, Irwin I. Shapiro proposed a fourth classic test: the time delay of electromagnetic radiation (such as radar signals) passing the Sun. Gravitational fields also have an effect on the ticking of clocks: a clock in a weak gravitational field runs faster than a clock in a strong gravitational field. In recent years, satellite-based tests have ‘confirmed’ (or in Popper’s terminology, ‘corroborated’) the results of the classic tests.

This logical rule states that if in a conditional sentence: ‘If p, then q’, the consequent q does not hold, then the antecedent p must be negated. So we infer from non-q to non-p. If p stands for a theory and q stands for, say, a prediction, then the falsity of the prediction implies the falsity of the theory.

See Logic 1980: §§3, 22; Realism/Aim 1985: xxii; Alles Leben 1996: 26; All Life 1999: 10; cf. Corvi 1997: Pt. II. In the Introduction to Grundprobleme (1979: XXXVI, 2009: XXXV; cf. C&R 1963: 228) Popper rejected the term ‘falsificationism’ because it conflated ‘falsification’ and ‘falsifiabiliy’. He preferred the term ‘fallibilism’.

Popper dealt with such a situation in an article in Nature (1940). He discusses three interpretations of nebular red shifts: ‘The three theories are logically equivalent, and therefore do not describe alternative facts , but the same facts in alternative languages .’ (‘Interpretation’ 1940: 69–70; italics in original) (He would write further articles in Nature on the arrow of time in the 1950s and 1960s.)

See K. Popper, ‘On theories as nets’, New Scientist (1982, 319–320). Popper repeatedly used this image of theories as nets, starting in Grundprobleme (1979: 487, 2009: 492). ‘We try to examine the world exhaustively by our nets; but its mesh will always let some small fish escape: there will always be enough play for indeterminism.’ (Popper, Open Universe 1982: 47)

Popper’s concern with probability in Logik later led to his well-known propensity interpretation of probability.

This is not just an issue of terminology. The German sociologist Ulrich Beck uses Popper’s criterion of ‘practical fallibilism’ as an element in his theory of the ‘risk society’, because it undermines the traditional image of science, which Popper himself rejected. (Beck 1992: Pt. III, Chap. 7)

On the question of proliferation of hypotheses, David Miller told me that ‘he (Popper) had learnt from his geologist colleague Bob Allan in NZ about Chamberlin's paper ‘The Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses’, which was published in the Journal of Geology ( 5 1897: 837–48, and reprinted in Science in 1965 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/148/3671/754 ). Jeremy Shearmur procured him a copy [349.13].

I understand the difference between alternative and rival theories as that between alternative versions of the same theory, which agree on first principles, and conflicting theories, which disagree on first principles.

Popper frequently stressed the importance of a dogmatic phase, not only in his publications— Autobiography 1974: §§10, 16; ‘Replies’ 1974: 984; Myth 1994: 16; Alles Leben 1996: 121; All Life 1999: 41; Realism/Aim 1983/1985: Introduction 1982: xxii—but also in his correspondence. In a letter to the American physicist and philosopher Abner Shimony (01/02/70), whom he met at Brandeis, he emphasized that, against the slogan of verification, he had to stress the ‘virtues of testing’. He added that “dogmatic thinking” and the defence of a theory against criticism are needed, if we wish to come to a sound appreciation of the value of a theory: if we give in too easily, we shall never find out what is the strength of the theory, and what deserves preservation’. Not happy with Popper’s version of fallibilism, Shimony hoped to persuade him of the power of scientific inference [350.07].

Some of the leading proponents of string theory also embrace the Anthropic Principle. (Susskind 2006: 197) It does not just claim that the world is the way it is because we are here. No, the Anthropic Principle serves to explain the fine-tuning of the constants of nature, without which (intelligent) life would be impossible.

Joseph J. Thomson proposed the ‘plum-pudding’ model in 1904, after his discovery of the electron (1897). The negatively charged electrons were embedded in a positively charged volume, but there was no nucleus. It was replaced by Rutherford’s nucleus model. For more on these models see my book The Scientist as Philosopher (2004) and my articles ‘The Structure of Atom Models’ (2000) and ‘The Role of Probability Arguments in the History of Science’ (2010).

Bondi is famous for his contribution to cosmology. He rejected the Big Bang theory and proposed, in cooperation with Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold, the alternative steady-state model. Fred Hoyle’s biographer Simon Mitton, of Cambridge University, told me in a private email (06/03/2020) that Hoyle never mentioned Popper. Popper dismissed the Big Bang theory as ‘unimportant’ ( Offene Gesellschaft 1986: 48–50), even as ‘metaphysical’. ( Zukunft 4 1990: 69–70)

For instance the great American physicist Richard Feynman who held that science is not certain, that it starts with ‘guesses’ whose consequences must be compared to experience.

In our conversation at the LSE John Worrall sounded a note of caution with reference to Peter Medawar and Paul Nurse: ‘well, quite honestly, I don’t know whether you really need to read Popper to know pretty soon when you are doing your scientific work that you are not inductively generalizing data, that you do make hypotheses, that you do need to check that these hypotheses are true or not’. But he agreed that ‘far and away more than any other philosopher he does seem to have been generally influential. And generally regarded as a significant figure, more outside the field than within the field, I think’.

Equate Newton’s second law of motion and his law of gravitation: mg = \(G\frac{m{M}_{E}}{{r}^{2}}\) and solve for M E . Here g is the acceleration near the surface of the earth, r is the radius between the centres of the two bodies and G is the gravitational constant.

Winzer (2019); cf. Kneale’s example of Anderson’s discovery of the positron. Kneale (1974: 206–208). Settle (1974: 701–702) discusses some further examples of ‘non-Popperian’ progress in science.

Note that national or racial prejudices are based on inductive steps: from our experience with some people of a nation or a race to all people of that nation or race.

Note that Newton’s theory does not require that all planets rotate from west to east. In our solar system both Venus and Pluto spin from east to west. So, the east-bound spin of most planets in the solar system could not be a universal, all-inclusive law.

According to Hacohen (2000: 133–134, 144), he accepted the method of induction in his psychological work until 1929. As he wrote to John Stachel it was not until then that he realized the close link between induction and demarcation.

John Norton, of the University of Pittsburgh, has recently proposed a richly illustrated material theory of induction, according to which inductive inferences (both enumerative and eliminative) are legitimate as long as they occur on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. Norton (2021: v–viii; 4–8) claims that ‘all induction is local’ and that ‘no universal rules of induction’ exist. Particular inferences are warranted by ‘background facts in some domain’ which ‘tell us what are good and bad inductive inferences in that domain’.

Several articles in O’Hear ed. (1995), for instance by Newton-Smith and Lipton, elaborate on these inductive elements. There are, therefore, in Popper’s account inductive assumptions. One of the authors who pointed out that ‘falsificationism’ requires inductive assumptions, was my former colleague Anthony O’Hear (1980). Popper complained to him that he did not like his book, (although he admits that his own account contains a ‘whiff of verificationism’). Anthony told me in an email (28/06/20): ‘He (Popper) added that I was “product of the modern education”—by which he meant that I was a follower of Moore and Wittgenstein. But perhaps things were not quite as abrasive as it might have appeared at the time (1980). I found out a lot later that he had told a friend of mine that he (the friend) ought to read my book. He (Popper) did not like it, but it was a serious book, or words to that effect’. Miller (1994: Chap. 2) lists a number of such inductive elements and attempts to eliminate them from Popper’s account.

In his work on political philosophy he condemned the dogmatism, which he detected at work in Plato, Hegel and Marx.

Popper was prone to exaggerations: induction does not exist, a large part of the knowledge of organisms is inborn, all tests boil down to attempted falsifications or everything is a propensity.

In his later work he regarded the notion of verisimilitude (or truthlikeness ) as a more realistic aim of science. ( Objective Knowledge 1972: 57–58) In a panel discussion in the 1980s, he rejected the view, attributed to him, that ‘theories are never true’. ‘This is nonsense. Scientific theories are the ones, which have survived the elimination process’ ( Zukunft 4 1990: 101; my translation).

The theories themselves may be generated from conjectures, intuition or inductive generalization.

Now Appendix *ix of his Logic of Scientific Discovery. Popper ( Myth 1994: 86–87) acknowledges that Bacon was aware of the defect of simple induction by enumeration.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK

Friedel Weinert

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Friedel Weinert .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Weinert, F. (2022). The Discovery of the Falsifiability Principle. In: Karl Popper. Springer Biographies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15424-9_3

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15424-9_3

Published : 01 January 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-15423-2

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-15424-9

eBook Packages : Religion and Philosophy Philosophy and Religion (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1, the scientific method.

• Controlled experiments
• The scientific method and experimental design

Introduction

• Make an observation.
• Ask a question.
• Form a hypothesis , or testable explanation.
• Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
• Test the prediction.
• Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

Scientific method example: Failure to toast

1. make an observation..

• Observation: the toaster won't toast.

2. Ask a question.

• Question: Why won't my toaster toast?

3. Propose a hypothesis.

• Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.

4. Make predictions.

• Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.

5. Test the predictions.

• Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• If the toaster does toast, then the hypothesis is supported—likely correct.
• If the toaster doesn't toast, then the hypothesis is not supported—likely wrong.

Logical possibility

Practical possibility, building a body of evidence, 6. iterate..

• Iteration time!
• If the hypothesis was supported, we might do additional tests to confirm it, or revise it to be more specific. For instance, we might investigate why the outlet is broken.
• If the hypothesis was not supported, we would come up with a new hypothesis. For instance, the next hypothesis might be that there's a broken wire in the toaster.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Law of Falsifiability

The Law of Falsifiability is a rule that a famous thinker named Karl Popper came up with. In simple terms, for something to be called scientific, there must be a way to show it could be incorrect. Imagine you’re saying you have an invisible, noiseless, pet dragon in your room that no one can touch or see. If no one can test to see if the dragon is really there, then it’s not scientific. But if you claim that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level, we can test this. If it turns out water does not boil at this temperature under these conditions, then the claim would be proven false. That’s what Karl Popper was getting at – science is about making claims that can be tested, possibly shown to be false, and that’s what keeps it trustworthy and moving forward.

Examples of Law of Falsifiability

• Astrology – Astrology is like saying certain traits or events will happen to you based on star patterns. But because its predictions are too general and can’t be checked in a clear way, it doesn’t pass the test of falsifiability. This means astrology cannot be considered a scientific theory since you can’t show when it’s wrong with specific tests.
• The Theory of Evolution – In contrast, the theory of evolution is something we can test. It says that different living things developed over a very long time. If someone were to find an animal’s remains in a rock layer where it should not be, such as a rabbit in rock that’s 500 million years old, that would challenge the theory. Since we can test it by looking for evidence like this, evolution is considered falsifiable.

Why is it Important?

The Law of Falsifiability matters a lot because it separates what’s considered scientific from what’s not. When an idea can’t be tested or shown to be wrong, it can lead people down the wrong path. By focusing on theories we can test, science gets stronger and we learn more about the world for real. For everyday people, this is key because it means we can rely on science for things like medicine, technology, and understanding our environment. If scientists didn’t use this rule, we might believe in things that aren’t true, like magic potions or the idea that some stars can predict your future.

Implications and Applications

The rule of being able to test if something is false is basic in the world of science and is used in all sorts of subjects. For example, in an experiment, scientists try really hard to see if their guess about something can be shown wrong. If their guess survives all the tests, it’s a good sign; if not, they need to think again or throw it out. This is how science gets better and better.

Comparison with Related Axioms

• Verifiability : This means checking if a statement or idea is true. Both verifiability and falsifiability have to do with testing, but falsifiability is seen as more important because things that can be proven wrong are usually also things we can check for truth.
• Empiricism : This is the belief that knowledge comes from what we can sense – like seeing, hearing, or touching. Falsifiability and empiricism go hand in hand because both involve using real evidence to test out ideas.
• Reproducibility : This idea says that doing the same experiment in the same way should give you the same result. To show something is falsifiable, you should be able to repeat a test over and over, with the chance that it might fail.

Karl Popper brought the Law of Falsifiability into the world in the 1900s. He didn’t like theories that seemed to answer everything because, to him, they actually explained nothing. By making this law, he aimed to make a clear line between what could be taken seriously in science and what could not. It was his way of making sure scientific thinking stayed sharp and clear.

Controversies

Not everyone agrees that falsifiability is the only way to tell if something is scientific. Some experts point out areas in science, like string theory from physics, which are really hard to test and so are hard to apply this law to. Also, in science fields that look at history, like how the universe began or how life changed over time, it’s not always about predictions that can be tested, but more about understanding special events. These differences in opinion show that while it’s a strong part of scientific thinking, falsifiability might not work for every situation or be the only thing that counts for scientific ideas.

Related Topics

• Scientific Method : This is the process scientists use to study things. It involves asking questions, making a hypothesis, running experiments, and seeing if the results support the hypothesis. Falsifiability is part of this process because scientists have to be able to test their hypotheses.
• Peer Review : When scientists finish their work, other experts check it to make sure it was done right. This involves reviewing if the experiments and tests were set up in a way that they could have shown the work was false if it wasn’t true.
• Logic and Critical Thinking : These are skills that help us make good arguments and decisions. Understanding falsifiability helps people develop these skills because it teaches them to always look for ways to test ideas.

In conclusion, the Law of Falsifiability, as brought up by Karl Popper, is like a key part of a scientist’s toolbox. It makes sure that ideas need to be able to be tested and possibly shown to be not true. By using this rule, we avoid believing in things without good evidence, and we make the stuff we learn about the world through science stronger and more reliable.

From the Editors

Notes from The Conversation newsroom

How we edit science part 1: the scientific method

View all partners

We take science seriously at The Conversation and we work hard to report it accurately. This series of five posts is adapted from an internal presentation on how to understand and edit science by our Australian Science & Technology Editor, Tim Dean. We thought you might also find it useful.

Introduction

If I told you that science was a truth-seeking endeavour that uses a single robust method to prove scientific facts about the world, steadily and inexorably driving towards objective truth, would you believe me?

Many would. But you shouldn’t.

The public perception of science is often at odds with how science actually works. Science is often seen to be a separate domain of knowledge, framed to be superior to other forms of knowledge by virtue of its objectivity, which is sometimes referred to as it having a “ view from nowhere ”.

But science is actually far messier than this - and far more interesting. It is not without its limitations and flaws, but it’s still the most effective tool we have to understand the workings of the natural world around us.

In order to report or edit science effectively - or to consume it as a reader - it’s important to understand what science is, how the scientific method (or methods) work, and also some of the common pitfalls in practising science and interpreting its results.

This guide will give a short overview of what science is and how it works, with a more detailed treatment of both these topics in the final post in the series.

What is science?

Science is special, not because it claims to provide us with access to the truth, but because it admits it can’t provide truth .

Other means of producing knowledge, such as pure reason, intuition or revelation, might be appealing because they give the impression of certainty , but when this knowledge is applied to make predictions about the world around us, reality often finds them wanting.

Rather, science consists of a bunch of methods that enable us to accumulate evidence to test our ideas about how the world is, and why it works the way it does. Science works precisely because it enables us to make predictions that are borne out by experience.

Science is not a body of knowledge. Facts are facts, it’s just that some are known with a higher degree of certainty than others. What we often call “scientific facts” are just facts that are backed by the rigours of the scientific method, but they are not intrinsically different from other facts about the world.

What makes science so powerful is that it’s intensely self-critical. In order for a hypothesis to pass muster and enter a textbook, it must survive a battery of tests designed specifically to show that it could be wrong. If it passes, it has cleared a high bar.

The scientific method(s)

Despite what some philosophers have stated , there is a method for conducting science. In fact, there are many. And not all revolve around performing experiments.

One method involves simple observation, description and classification, such as in taxonomy. (Some physicists look down on this – and every other – kind of science, but they’re only greasing a slippery slope .)

However, when most of us think of The Scientific Method, we’re thinking of a particular kind of experimental method for testing hypotheses.

This begins with observing phenomena in the world around us, and then moves on to positing hypotheses for why those phenomena happen the way they do. A hypothesis is just an explanation, usually in the form of a causal mechanism: X causes Y. An example would be: gravitation causes the ball to fall back to the ground.

A scientific theory is just a collection of well-tested hypotheses that hang together to explain a great deal of stuff.

Crucially, a scientific hypothesis needs to be testable and falsifiable .

An untestable hypothesis would be something like “the ball falls to the ground because mischievous invisible unicorns want it to”. If these unicorns are not detectable by any scientific instrument, then the hypothesis that they’re responsible for gravity is not scientific.

An unfalsifiable hypothesis is one where no amount of testing can prove it wrong. An example might be the psychic who claims the experiment to test their powers of ESP failed because the scientific instruments were interfering with their abilities.

(Caveat: there are some hypotheses that are untestable because we choose not to test them. That doesn’t make them unscientific in principle, it’s just that they’ve been denied by an ethics committee or other regulation.)

Experimentation

There are often many hypotheses that could explain any particular phenomenon. Does the rock fall to the ground because an invisible force pulls on the rock? Or is it because the mass of the Earth warps spacetime , and the rock follows the lowest-energy path, thus colliding with the ground? Or is it that all substances have a natural tendency to fall towards the centre of the Universe , which happens to be at the centre of the Earth?

The trick is figuring out which hypothesis is the right one. That’s where experimentation comes in.

A scientist will take their hypothesis and use that to make a prediction, and they will construct an experiment to see if that prediction holds. But any observation that confirms one hypothesis will likely confirm several others as well. If I lift and drop a rock, it supports all three of the hypotheses on gravity above.

Furthermore, you can keep accumulating evidence to confirm a hypothesis, and it will never prove it to be absolutely true. This is because you can’t rule out the possibility of another similar hypothesis being correct, or of making some new observation that shows your hypothesis to be false. But if one day you drop a rock and it shoots off into space, that ought to cast doubt on all of the above hypotheses.

So while you can never prove a hypothesis true simply by making more confirmatory observations, you only one need one solid contrary observation to prove a hypothesis false. This notion is at the core of the hypothetico-deductive model of science.

This is why a great deal of science is focused on testing hypotheses, pushing them to their limits and attempting to break them through experimentation. If the hypothesis survives repeated testing, our confidence in it grows.

So even crazy-sounding theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics can become well accepted, because both enable very precise predictions, and these have been exhaustively tested and come through unscathed.

The next post will cover hypothesis testing in greater detail.

• Scientific method
• Philosophy of science
• How we edit science

Scheduling Analyst

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

• Privacy Policy

Home » What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

What is a Hypothesis – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Definition:

Hypothesis is an educated guess or proposed explanation for a phenomenon, based on some initial observations or data. It is a tentative statement that can be tested and potentially proven or disproven through further investigation and experimentation.

Hypothesis is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments and the collection and analysis of data. It is an essential element of the scientific method, as it allows researchers to make predictions about the outcome of their experiments and to test those predictions to determine their accuracy.

Types of Hypothesis

Types of Hypothesis are as follows:

Research Hypothesis

A research hypothesis is a statement that predicts a relationship between variables. It is usually formulated as a specific statement that can be tested through research, and it is often used in scientific research to guide the design of experiments.

Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as a starting point for testing the research hypothesis, and if the results of the study reject the null hypothesis, it suggests that there is a significant difference or relationship between variables.

Alternative Hypothesis

An alternative hypothesis is a statement that assumes there is a significant difference or relationship between variables. It is often used as an alternative to the null hypothesis and is tested against the null hypothesis to determine which statement is more accurate.

Directional Hypothesis

A directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the direction of the relationship between variables. For example, a researcher might predict that increasing the amount of exercise will result in a decrease in body weight.

Non-directional Hypothesis

A non-directional hypothesis is a statement that predicts the relationship between variables but does not specify the direction. For example, a researcher might predict that there is a relationship between the amount of exercise and body weight, but they do not specify whether increasing or decreasing exercise will affect body weight.

Statistical Hypothesis

A statistical hypothesis is a statement that assumes a particular statistical model or distribution for the data. It is often used in statistical analysis to test the significance of a particular result.

Composite Hypothesis

A composite hypothesis is a statement that assumes more than one condition or outcome. It can be divided into several sub-hypotheses, each of which represents a different possible outcome.

Empirical Hypothesis

An empirical hypothesis is a statement that is based on observed phenomena or data. It is often used in scientific research to develop theories or models that explain the observed phenomena.

Simple Hypothesis

A simple hypothesis is a statement that assumes only one outcome or condition. It is often used in scientific research to test a single variable or factor.

Complex Hypothesis

A complex hypothesis is a statement that assumes multiple outcomes or conditions. It is often used in scientific research to test the effects of multiple variables or factors on a particular outcome.

Applications of Hypothesis

Hypotheses are used in various fields to guide research and make predictions about the outcomes of experiments or observations. Here are some examples of how hypotheses are applied in different fields:

• Science : In scientific research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain natural phenomena. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular variable on a natural system, such as the effects of climate change on an ecosystem.
• Medicine : In medical research, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of treatments and therapies for specific conditions. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new drug on a particular disease.
• Psychology : In psychology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of human behavior and cognition. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a particular stimulus on the brain or behavior.
• Sociology : In sociology, hypotheses are used to test theories and models of social phenomena, such as the effects of social structures or institutions on human behavior. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of income inequality on crime rates.
• Business : In business research, hypotheses are used to test the validity of theories and models that explain business phenomena, such as consumer behavior or market trends. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the effects of a new marketing campaign on consumer buying behavior.
• Engineering : In engineering, hypotheses are used to test the effectiveness of new technologies or designs. For example, a hypothesis might be formulated to test the efficiency of a new solar panel design.

How to write a Hypothesis

Here are the steps to follow when writing a hypothesis:

Identify the Research Question

The first step is to identify the research question that you want to answer through your study. This question should be clear, specific, and focused. It should be something that can be investigated empirically and that has some relevance or significance in the field.

Conduct a Literature Review

Before writing your hypothesis, it’s essential to conduct a thorough literature review to understand what is already known about the topic. This will help you to identify the research gap and formulate a hypothesis that builds on existing knowledge.

Determine the Variables

The next step is to identify the variables involved in the research question. A variable is any characteristic or factor that can vary or change. There are two types of variables: independent and dependent. The independent variable is the one that is manipulated or changed by the researcher, while the dependent variable is the one that is measured or observed as a result of the independent variable.

Formulate the Hypothesis

Based on the research question and the variables involved, you can now formulate your hypothesis. A hypothesis should be a clear and concise statement that predicts the relationship between the variables. It should be testable through empirical research and based on existing theory or evidence.

Write the Null Hypothesis

The null hypothesis is the opposite of the alternative hypothesis, which is the hypothesis that you are testing. The null hypothesis states that there is no significant difference or relationship between the variables. It is important to write the null hypothesis because it allows you to compare your results with what would be expected by chance.

Refine the Hypothesis

After formulating the hypothesis, it’s important to refine it and make it more precise. This may involve clarifying the variables, specifying the direction of the relationship, or making the hypothesis more testable.

Examples of Hypothesis

Here are a few examples of hypotheses in different fields:

• Psychology : “Increased exposure to violent video games leads to increased aggressive behavior in adolescents.”
• Biology : “Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to increased plant growth.”
• Sociology : “Individuals who grow up in households with higher socioeconomic status will have higher levels of education and income as adults.”
• Education : “Implementing a new teaching method will result in higher student achievement scores.”
• Marketing : “Customers who receive a personalized email will be more likely to make a purchase than those who receive a generic email.”
• Physics : “An increase in temperature will cause an increase in the volume of a gas, assuming all other variables remain constant.”
• Medicine : “Consuming a diet high in saturated fats will increase the risk of developing heart disease.”

Purpose of Hypothesis

The purpose of a hypothesis is to provide a testable explanation for an observed phenomenon or a prediction of a future outcome based on existing knowledge or theories. A hypothesis is an essential part of the scientific method and helps to guide the research process by providing a clear focus for investigation. It enables scientists to design experiments or studies to gather evidence and data that can support or refute the proposed explanation or prediction.

The formulation of a hypothesis is based on existing knowledge, observations, and theories, and it should be specific, testable, and falsifiable. A specific hypothesis helps to define the research question, which is important in the research process as it guides the selection of an appropriate research design and methodology. Testability of the hypothesis means that it can be proven or disproven through empirical data collection and analysis. Falsifiability means that the hypothesis should be formulated in such a way that it can be proven wrong if it is incorrect.

In addition to guiding the research process, the testing of hypotheses can lead to new discoveries and advancements in scientific knowledge. When a hypothesis is supported by the data, it can be used to develop new theories or models to explain the observed phenomenon. When a hypothesis is not supported by the data, it can help to refine existing theories or prompt the development of new hypotheses to explain the phenomenon.

When to use Hypothesis

Here are some common situations in which hypotheses are used:

• In scientific research , hypotheses are used to guide the design of experiments and to help researchers make predictions about the outcomes of those experiments.
• In social science research , hypotheses are used to test theories about human behavior, social relationships, and other phenomena.
• I n business , hypotheses can be used to guide decisions about marketing, product development, and other areas. For example, a hypothesis might be that a new product will sell well in a particular market, and this hypothesis can be tested through market research.

Characteristics of Hypothesis

Here are some common characteristics of a hypothesis:

• Testable : A hypothesis must be able to be tested through observation or experimentation. This means that it must be possible to collect data that will either support or refute the hypothesis.
• Falsifiable : A hypothesis must be able to be proven false if it is not supported by the data. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, then it is not a scientific hypothesis.
• Clear and concise : A hypothesis should be stated in a clear and concise manner so that it can be easily understood and tested.
• Based on existing knowledge : A hypothesis should be based on existing knowledge and research in the field. It should not be based on personal beliefs or opinions.
• Specific : A hypothesis should be specific in terms of the variables being tested and the predicted outcome. This will help to ensure that the research is focused and well-designed.
• Tentative: A hypothesis is a tentative statement or assumption that requires further testing and evidence to be confirmed or refuted. It is not a final conclusion or assertion.
• Relevant : A hypothesis should be relevant to the research question or problem being studied. It should address a gap in knowledge or provide a new perspective on the issue.

Advantages of Hypothesis

Hypotheses have several advantages in scientific research and experimentation:

• Guides research: A hypothesis provides a clear and specific direction for research. It helps to focus the research question, select appropriate methods and variables, and interpret the results.
• Predictive powe r: A hypothesis makes predictions about the outcome of research, which can be tested through experimentation. This allows researchers to evaluate the validity of the hypothesis and make new discoveries.
• Facilitates communication: A hypothesis provides a common language and framework for scientists to communicate with one another about their research. This helps to facilitate the exchange of ideas and promotes collaboration.
• Efficient use of resources: A hypothesis helps researchers to use their time, resources, and funding efficiently by directing them towards specific research questions and methods that are most likely to yield results.
• Provides a basis for further research: A hypothesis that is supported by data provides a basis for further research and exploration. It can lead to new hypotheses, theories, and discoveries.
• Increases objectivity: A hypothesis can help to increase objectivity in research by providing a clear and specific framework for testing and interpreting results. This can reduce bias and increase the reliability of research findings.

Limitations of Hypothesis

Some Limitations of the Hypothesis are as follows:

• Limited to observable phenomena: Hypotheses are limited to observable phenomena and cannot account for unobservable or intangible factors. This means that some research questions may not be amenable to hypothesis testing.
• May be inaccurate or incomplete: Hypotheses are based on existing knowledge and research, which may be incomplete or inaccurate. This can lead to flawed hypotheses and erroneous conclusions.
• May be biased: Hypotheses may be biased by the researcher’s own beliefs, values, or assumptions. This can lead to selective interpretation of data and a lack of objectivity in research.
• Cannot prove causation: A hypothesis can only show a correlation between variables, but it cannot prove causation. This requires further experimentation and analysis.
• Limited to specific contexts: Hypotheses are limited to specific contexts and may not be generalizable to other situations or populations. This means that results may not be applicable in other contexts or may require further testing.
• May be affected by chance : Hypotheses may be affected by chance or random variation, which can obscure or distort the true relationship between variables.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis: A Guide for Researchers

• by Brian Thomas
• October 10, 2023

Are you a curious soul, always seeking answers to the whys and hows of the world? As a researcher, formulating a hypothesis is a crucial first step towards unraveling the mysteries of your study. A well-crafted hypothesis not only guides your research but also lays the foundation for drawing valid conclusions. But what exactly makes a hypothesis a good one? In this blog post, we will explore the five key characteristics of a good hypothesis that every researcher should know.

Here, we will delve into the world of hypotheses, covering everything from their types in research to understanding if they can be proven true. Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or just starting out, this blog post will provide valuable insights on how to craft a sound hypothesis for your study. So let’s dive in and uncover the secrets to formulating a hypothesis that stands strong amidst the scientific rigor!

(Keywords: characteristics of a good hypothesis, important characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, types of hypothesis in research, can a hypothesis be proven true, 6 parts of hypothesis, how to start a hypothesis sentence, examples of hypothesis, five key elements of a good hypothesis, hypothesis in research papers, is a hypothesis always a question, three things needed for a good hypothesis, components of a good hypothesis, formulate a hypothesis, characteristics of a hypothesis mcq, criteria for a scientific hypothesis, steps of theory development in scientific methods, what makes a good hypothesis, characteristics of a good hypothesis quizlet, five-step p-value approach to hypothesis testing , stages of hypothesis, good hypothesis characteristics, writing a good hypothesis example, difference between hypothesis and hypotheses, good hypothesis statement, not a characteristic of a good hypothesis)

5 Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

Clear and specific.

A good hypothesis is like a GPS that guides you to the right destination. It needs to be clear and specific so that you know exactly what you’re testing. Avoid vague statements or general ideas. Instead, focus on crafting a hypothesis that clearly states the relationship between variables and the expected outcome. Clarity is key, my friend!

Testable and Falsifiable

A hypothesis might sound great in theory, but if you can’t test it or prove it wrong, then it’s like chasing unicorns. A good hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable – meaning there should be a way to gather evidence to support or refute it. Don’t be afraid to challenge your hypothesis and put it to the test. Only when it can be proven false can it truly be considered a good hypothesis.

Based on Existing Knowledge

Imagine trying to build a Lego tower without any Lego bricks. That’s what it’s like to come up with a hypothesis that has no basis in existing knowledge. A good hypothesis is grounded in previous research, theories, or observations. It shows that you’ve done your homework and understand the current state of knowledge in your field. So, put on your research hat and gather those building blocks for a solid hypothesis!

Specific Predictions

No, we’re not talking about crystal ball predictions or psychic abilities here. A good hypothesis includes specific predictions about what you expect to happen. It’s like making an educated guess based on your understanding of the variables involved. These predictions help guide your research and give you something concrete to look for. So, put on those prediction goggles, my friend, and let’s get specific!

Relevant to the Research Question

A hypothesis is a road sign that points you in the right direction. But if it’s not relevant to your research question, then you might end up in a never-ending detour. A good hypothesis aligns with your research question and addresses the specific problem or phenomenon you’re investigating. Keep your focus on the main topic and avoid getting sidetracked by shiny distractions. Stay relevant, my friend, and you’ll find the answers you seek!

And there you have it: the five characteristics of a good hypothesis. Remember, a good hypothesis is clear, testable, based on existing knowledge, makes specific predictions, and is relevant to your research question. So go forth, my friend, and hypothesize your way to scientific discovery!

FAQs: Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

In the realm of scientific research, a hypothesis plays a crucial role in formulating and testing ideas. A good hypothesis serves as the foundation for an experiment or study, guiding the researcher towards meaningful results. In this FAQ-style subsection, we’ll explore the characteristics of a good hypothesis, their types, formulation, and more. So let’s dive in and unravel the mysteries of hypothesis-making!

What Are Two Important Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis possesses two important characteristics:

Testability : A hypothesis must be testable to determine its validity. It should be formulated in a way that allows researchers to design and conduct experiments or gather data for analysis. For example, if we hypothesize that “drinking herbal tea reduces stress,” we can easily test it by conducting a study with a control group and a group drinking herbal tea.

Falsifiability : Falsifiability refers to the potential for a hypothesis to be proven wrong. A good hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be refuted or supported by evidence. This characteristic ensures that hypotheses are based on empirical observations rather than personal opinions. For instance, the hypothesis “all swans are white” can be falsified by discovering a single black swan.

What Are the Types of Hypothesis in Research

In research, there are three main types of hypotheses:

Null Hypothesis (H0) : The null hypothesis is a statement of no effect or relationship. It assumes that there is no significant difference between variables or no effect of a treatment. Researchers aim to reject the null hypothesis in favor of an alternative hypothesis.

Alternative Hypothesis (HA or H1) : The alternative hypothesis is the opposite of the null hypothesis. It asserts that there is a significant difference between variables or an effect of a treatment. Researchers seek evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.

Directional Hypothesis : A directional hypothesis predicts the specific direction of the relationship or difference between variables. For example, “increasing exercise duration will lead to greater weight loss.”

Can a Hypothesis Be Proven True

In scientific research, hypotheses are not proven true; they are supported or rejected based on empirical evidence . Even if a hypothesis is supported by multiple studies, new evidence could arise that contradicts it. Scientific knowledge is always subject to revision and refinement. Therefore, the goal is to gather enough evidence to either support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it absolutely true.

What Are the Six Parts of a Hypothesis

A hypothesis typically consists of six essential parts:

Research Question : A clear and concise question that the hypothesis seeks to answer.

Variables : Identification of the independent (manipulated) and dependent (measured) variables involved in the hypothesis.

Population : The specific group or individuals the hypothesis is concerned with.

Relationship or Comparison : The expected relationship or difference between variables, often indicated by directional terms like “more,” “less,” “higher,” or “lower.”

Predictability : A statement of the predicted outcome or result based on the relationship between variables.

Testability : The ability to design an experiment or gather data to support or reject the hypothesis.

How Do You Start a Hypothesis Sentence

When starting a hypothesis sentence, it is essential to use clear and concise language to express your ideas. A common approach is to use the phrase “If…then…” to establish the conditional relationship between variables. For example:

• If [independent variable], then [dependent variable] because [explanation of expected relationship].

This structure allows for a straightforward and logical formulation of the hypothesis.

What Are Examples of Hypotheses

Here are a few examples of well-formulated hypotheses:

If exposure to sunlight increases, then plants will grow taller because sunlight is necessary for photosynthesis.

If students receive praise for good grades, then their motivation to excel will increase because they seek recognition and approval.

If the dose of a painkiller is increased, then the relief from pain will last longer because a higher dosage has a prolonged effect.

What Are the Five Key Elements to a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis should include the following five key elements:

Clarity : The hypothesis should be clear and specific, leaving no room for interpretation.

Testability : It should be possible to test the hypothesis through experimentation or data collection.

Relevance : The hypothesis should be directly tied to the research question or problem being investigated.

Specificity : It must clearly state the relationship or difference between variables being studied.

Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make predictions that can be refuted or supported by empirical evidence.

What Makes a Good Hypothesis in a Research Paper

In a research paper, a good hypothesis should have the following characteristics:

Relevance : It must directly relate to the research topic and address the objectives of the study.

Clarity : The hypothesis should be concise and precisely worded to avoid confusion.

Unambiguous : It must leave no room for multiple interpretations or ambiguity.

Logic : The hypothesis should be based on rational and logical reasoning, considering existing theories and observations.

Empirical Support : Ideally, the hypothesis should be supported by prior empirical evidence or strong theoretical justifications.

Is a Hypothesis Always a Question

No, a hypothesis is not always in the form of a question. While some hypotheses can take the form of a question, others may be statements asserting a relationship or difference between variables. The form of a hypothesis depends on the research question being addressed and the researcher’s preferred style of expression.

What Are the Three Things Needed for a Good Hypothesis

For a hypothesis to be considered good, it must fulfill the following three criteria:

Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that allows for empirical testing through experimentation or data collection.

Falsifiability : It must make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.

Relevance : The hypothesis should directly address the research question or problem being investigated.

What Are the Four Components to a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis typically consists of four components:

Independent Variable : The variable being manipulated or controlled by the researcher.

Dependent Variable : The variable being measured or observed to determine the effect of the independent variable.

Directionality : The predicted relationship or difference between the independent and dependent variables.

Population : The specific group or individuals to which the hypothesis applies.

How Do You Formulate a Hypothesis

To formulate a hypothesis, follow these steps:

Identify the Research Topic : Clearly define the area or phenomenon you want to study.

Conduct Background Research : Review existing literature and research to gain knowledge about the topic.

Formulate a Research Question : Ask a clear and focused question that you want to answer through your hypothesis.

State the Null and Alternative Hypotheses : Develop a null hypothesis to assume no effect or relationship, and an alternative hypothesis to propose a significant effect or relationship.

Decide on Variables and Relationships : Determine the independent and dependent variables and the predicted relationship between them.

Refine and Test : Refine your hypothesis, ensuring it is clear, testable, and falsifiable. Then, design experiments or gather data to support or reject it.

What Is a Characteristic of a Hypothesis MCQ

Multiple-choice questions (MCQ) regarding the characteristics of a hypothesis often assess knowledge on the testability and falsifiability of hypotheses. They may ask about the criteria that distinguish a good hypothesis from a poor one or the importance of making specific predictions. Remember to choose answers that emphasize the empirical and testable nature of hypotheses.

What Five Criteria Must Be Satisfied for a Hypothesis to Be Scientific

For a hypothesis to be considered scientific, it must satisfy the following five criteria:

Testability : The hypothesis must be formulated in a way that allows it to be tested through experimentation or data collection.

Falsifiability : It should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by empirical evidence.

Empirical Basis : The hypothesis should be based on empirical observations or existing theories and knowledge.

Relevance : It must directly address the research question or problem being investigated.

Objective : A scientific hypothesis should be free from personal biases or subjective opinions, focusing on objective observations and analysis.

What Are the Steps of Theory Development in Scientific Methods

In scientific methods, theory development typically involves the following steps:

Observation : Identifying a phenomenon or pattern worthy of investigation through observation or empirical data.

Formulation of a Hypothesis : Constructing a hypothesis that explains the observed phenomena or predicts a relationship between variables.

Data Collection : Gathering relevant data through experiments, surveys, observations, or other research methods.

Analysis : Analyzing the collected data to evaluate the hypothesis’s predictions and determine their validity.

Revision and Refinement : Based on the analysis, refining the hypothesis, modifying the theory, or formulating new hypotheses for further investigation.

Which of the Following Makes a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis is characterized by:

Testability : The ability to form experiments or gather data to support or refute the hypothesis.

Falsifiability : The potential for the hypothesis’s predictions to be proven wrong based on empirical evidence.

Clarity : A clear and concise statement or question that leaves no room for ambiguity.

Relevancy : Directly addressing the research question or problem at hand.

Remember, it is important to select the option that encompasses all these characteristics.

What Are the Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

A good hypothesis possesses several characteristics, such as:

Testability : It should allow for empirical testing through experiments or data collection.

Falsifiability : The hypothesis should make specific predictions that can be potentially refuted or supported by evidence.

Clarity : It must be clearly and precisely formulated, leaving no room for ambiguity or multiple interpretations.

Relevance : The hypothesis should directly relate to the research question or problem being investigated.

What Is the Five-Step p-value Approach to Hypothesis Testing

The five-step p-value approach is a commonly used framework for hypothesis testing:

Step 1: Formulating the Hypotheses : The null hypothesis (H0) assumes no effect or relationship, while the alternative hypothesis (HA) proposes a significant effect or relationship.

Step 2: Setting the Significance Level : Decide on the level of significance (α), which represents the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true. The commonly used level is 0.05 (5%).

Step 3: Collecting Data and Performing the Test : Acquire and analyze the data, calculating the test statistic and the corresponding p-value.

Step 4: Comparing the p-value with the Significance Level : If the p-value is less than the significance level (α), reject the null hypothesis. Otherwise, fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step 5: Drawing Conclusions : Based on the comparison in Step 4, interpret the results and draw conclusions about the hypothesis.

What Are the Stages of Hypothesis

The stages of hypothesis generally include:

Observation : Identifying a pattern, phenomenon, or research question that warrants investigation.

Formulation : Developing a hypothesis that explains or predicts the relationship or difference between variables.

Testing : Collecting data, designing experiments, or conducting studies to gather evidence supporting or refuting the hypothesis.

Analysis : Assessing the collected data to determine whether the results support or reject the hypothesis.

Conclusion : Drawing conclusions based on the analysis and making further iterations, refinements, or new hypotheses for future research.

What Is a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

A characteristic of a good hypothesis is its ability to make specific predictions about the relationship or difference between variables. Good hypotheses avoid vague statements and clearly articulate the expected outcomes. By doing so, researchers can design experiments or gather data that directly test the predictions, leading to meaningful results.

How Do You Write a Good Hypothesis Example

To write a good hypothesis example, follow these guidelines:

If possible, use the “If…then…” format to express a conditional relationship between variables.

Be clear and concise in stating the variables involved, the predicted relationship, and the expected outcome.

Ensure the hypothesis is testable, meaning it can be evaluated through experiments or data collection.

For instance, consider the following example:

If students study for longer periods of time, then their test scores will improve because increased study time allows for better retention of information and increased proficiency.

What Is the Difference Between Hypothesis and Hypotheses

The main difference between a hypothesis and hypotheses lies in their grammatical number. A hypothesis refers to a single statement or proposition that is formulated to explain or predict the relationship between variables. On the other hand, hypotheses is the plural form of the term hypothesis, commonly used when multiple statements or propositions are proposed and tested simultaneously.

What Is a Good Hypothesis Statement

A good hypothesis statement exhibits the following qualities:

Clarity : It is written in clear and concise language, leaving no room for confusion or ambiguity.

Testability : The hypothesis should be formulated in a way that enables testing through experiments or data collection.

Specificity : It must clearly state the predicted relationship or difference between variables.

By adhering to these criteria, a good hypothesis statement guides research efforts effectively.

What Is Not a Characteristic of a Good Hypothesis

A characteristic that does not align with a good hypothesis is subjectivity . A hypothesis should be objective, based on empirical observations or existing theories, and free from personal bias. While personal interpretations and opinions can inspire the formulation of a hypothesis, it must ultimately rely on objective observations and be open to empirical testing.

By now, you’ve gained insights into the characteristics of a good hypothesis, including testability, falsifiability, clarity,

• characteristics
• falsifiable
• good hypothesis
• hypothesis testing
• null hypothesis
• observations
• scientific rigor

Brian Thomas

Is july really a 31-day month unraveling the puzzling calendar quirk, how long does it take to become l5 at amazon, you may also like, bluey’s banned episode in the us: what’s the story.

• by Mr. Gilbert Preston
• October 9, 2023

Why Does Pressing on My Skin Make it Turn White? Unveiling the Mysteries of Blanching Skin

• by Willie Wilson
• October 22, 2023

The Curious Case of Octane’s Missing Legs: Unveiling the Intriguing Backstory of Apex Legends’ Dynamic Daredevil

• by Brandon Thompson
• November 3, 2023

What is the Longest Spelled Color in the World?

Germany’s unusual swim laws: a historical dive into nudity and restrictions.

• October 30, 2023

Revealing the Mystery: When Does Zeref Unveil Natsu as His Brother?

• November 1, 2023

What Is a Testable Hypothesis?

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a  hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .

Requirements for a Testable Hypothesis

In order to be considered testable, two criteria must be met:

• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true.
• It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false.
• It must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.

Examples of a Testable Hypothesis

All the following hypotheses are testable. It's important, however, to note that while it's possible to say that the hypothesis is correct, much more research would be required to answer the question " why is this hypothesis correct?" 

• Students who attend class have higher grades than students who skip class.  This is testable because it is possible to compare the grades of students who do and do not skip class and then analyze the resulting data. Another person could conduct the same research and come up with the same results.
• People exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light have a higher incidence of cancer than the norm.  This is testable because it is possible to find a group of people who have been exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light and compare their cancer rates to the average.
• If you put people in a dark room, then they will be unable to tell when an infrared light turns on.  This hypothesis is testable because it is possible to put a group of people into a dark room, turn on an infrared light, and ask the people in the room whether or not an infrared light has been turned on.

Examples of a Hypothesis Not Written in a Testable Form

• It doesn't matter whether or not you skip class.  This hypothesis can't be tested because it doesn't make any actual claim regarding the outcome of skipping class. "It doesn't matter" doesn't have any specific meaning, so it can't be tested.
• Ultraviolet light could cause cancer.  The word "could" makes a hypothesis extremely difficult to test because it is very vague. There "could," for example, be UFOs watching us at every moment, even though it's impossible to prove that they are there!
• Goldfish make better pets than guinea pigs.  This is not a hypothesis; it's a matter of opinion. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a "better" pet is, so while it is possible to argue the point, there is no way to prove it.

How to Propose a Testable Hypothesis

Now that you know what a testable hypothesis is, here are tips for proposing one.

• Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement. If you take an action, then a certain outcome is expected.
• Identify the independent and dependent variable in the hypothesis. The independent variable is what you are controlling or changing. You measure the effect this has on the dependent variable.
• Write the hypothesis in such a way that you can prove or disprove it. For example, a person has skin cancer, you can't prove they got it from being out in the sun. However, you can demonstrate a relationship between exposure to ultraviolet light and increased risk of skin cancer.
• Make sure you are proposing a hypothesis you can test with reproducible results. If your face breaks out, you can't prove the breakout was caused by the french fries you had for dinner last night. However, you can measure whether or not eating french fries is associated with breaking out. It's a matter of gathering enough data to be able to reproduce results and draw a conclusion.
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• Theory Definition in Science
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples