You can't actually "prove" most hypotheses. Interesting hypotheses of the form "All X are Y" are impossible to prove when you've got infinite, or even very large, numbers of X. All you can do is fail to disprove it under as wide a variety of tests as you can think of.
Some hypotheses can be proven purely mathematically, but even then, you get into epistemological problems of what you can know a priori. For the most part, those are not the hypotheses that are worth studying, because the objects of most interest are the ones out in the world. > What determines when a hypothesis is strong or weak, true or false?
Strong/weak is a relative matter. A strong hypothesis makes a bolder claim than a weak one, covering more cases and being more "surprising". A weaker one covers fewer cases.
A false hypothesis is one for which evidence disproves it. Generally, only very simple hypotheses can be taken as true: "Some grass is green" is easily demonstrated.(There is still some epistemological question about even simple observations: does "this grass is green" really prove "some grass is green"; can you trust the observation? But that's mostly just philosophical maundering; the question of perception is usually taken for granted outside of purely academic discussion.
) That leaves a large category of not-disproven hypotheses. You can rarely actually prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt, but they can be held as tentatively true if it's useful to do so. A hypothesis such as, say, the theory of gravity hold up to countless tests without failing, so they are granted names like "law" or "theory" to designate their special status.
They are "true" for all practical sense. The philosophers disagree over some of the details (Kant, Hegel, Quine, Popper, Putnam, Kuhn, etc) but little of it matters for the working scientist, much less the working engineer or the user of the products of the engineer.It would sure suck to discover that the theory of gravity was just working by coincidence when you're riding a roller coaster, but it has been good enough so far.
A hypothesis is an educated guess, with testing to prove it. Determination of a hypotheses being strong or week is by testing it multiple times, if you get the same result then it is strong. Make your Educated guesses (Hypothesis).
Make Predictions Do the test Do the test again One more time (I would do it a 3rd time to just be safe) Draw Conclusions.
THE LOGICAL BASIS OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING Yes, an hypothesis is an educated guess.....and empirical evidence proves an hypothesis. Scientific Inquiry: attempts to provide good justification for believing a hypothesis is true or false. Theoretical Model: a generalized explanation of observed phenomena.
Theoretical Hypothesis: a contingent statement asserting that some real system corresponds to the theoretical model. Hypothesis: contingent statement that is treated as the object of research Hypotheses are logically justified by exhibiting them as conclusions of appropriate arguments. An argument must meet 2 conditions to justify believing the conclusion (hypothesis): (1) the premises (assumptions, experimental/initial conditions must themselves be justified.(2) there must be sufficient connection between the premises and conclusion Giere's 3 criteria of good test provides the basis for judging this connection.1) prediction is deducible from the hypothesis together with the initial conditions.2) prediction is improbable when considered out of context from hypothesis 3) prediction is verifiable The experiment determines the truth and falsity of the prediction.
If the prediction is successful the hypothesis is justified. If the prediction fails the hypothesis is refuted.
A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.
Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.
1 A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research. A different meaning of the term hypothesis is used in formal logic, to denote the antecedent of a proposition; thus in the proposition "If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can be called a consequent. P is the assumption in a (possibly counterfactual) What If question.
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis". In its ancient usage, hypothesis referred to a summary of the plot of a classical drama. The English word hypothesis comes from the Ancient Greek?
, (hupothesis) meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". In Plato's Meno (86eā87b), Socrates dissects virtue with a method used by mathematicians,3 that of "investigating from a hypothesis."4 In this sense, 'hypothesis' refers to a clever idea or to a convenient mathematical approach that simplifies cumbersome calculations. 5 Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous example of this usage in the warning issued to Galileo in the early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.
In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model. 7 Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them as existential statements, stating that some particular instance of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic and causal explanations, which have the general form of universal statements, stating that every instance of the phenomenon has a particular characteristic.
Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon in nature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk about probabilities.
Karl Popper, following others, has argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit the possibility of being shown false. Other philosophers of science have rejected the criterion of falsifiability or supplemented it with other criteria, such as verifiability (e.g. , verificationism) or coherence (e.g. A scientific method involves experiment, to test the ability of some hypothesis to adequately answer the question under investigation. In contrast, unfettered observation is not as likely to raise unexplained issues or open questions in science, as would the formulation of a crucial experiment to test the hypothesis.
A thought experiment might also be used to test the hypothesis as well. In framing a hypothesis, the investigator must not currently know the outcome of a test or that it remains reasonably under continuing investigation. Only in such cases does the experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of showing the truth of a hypothesis.
If the researcher already knows the outcome, it counts as a "consequence" ā and the researcher should have already considered this while formulating the hypothesis. If one cannot assess the predictions by observation or by experience, the hypothesis classes as not yet useful, and must wait for others who might come afterward to make possible the needed observations. For example, a new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible.
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess"89 because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem. Conservatism ā the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.
A 'working hypothesis' is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted as a basis for further research11 in the hope that a tenable theory will be produced, even if the hypothesis ultimately fails. 12 Like all hypotheses, a working hypothesis is constructed as a statement of expectations, which can be linked to the exploratory research purpose in empirical investigation and are often used as a conceptual framework in qualitative research. In recent years, philosophers of science have tried to integrate the various approaches to evaluating hypotheses, and the scientific method in general, to form a more complete system that integrates the individual concerns of each approach.
Notably, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, Karl Popper's colleague and student, respectively, have produced novel attempts at such a synthesis. Concepts in Hempel's D-N model play a key role in the development and testing of hypotheses. Most formal hypotheses connect concepts by specifying the expected relationships between propositions.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.