Why do we make a hypothesis when using the scientific method?

Question

The Scientific Method as I understand it:

Ask a question
Make observations
Form a hypothesis
Make a prediction
Collect information
Analyze data
Check hypothesis
Form a conclusion

Since I first learned of the SM in middle school I have wondered why we are force to make a hypothesis as to the outcome of the experiment. It seems like this would only lead to a bias towards our original ideas. Maybe in a perfect world this wouldn't happen, but we are far from that and I still don’t see how it would benefit the experiment.

Answer 1

You're asking a great question (a scientist in the making)!

The hypothesis is what moves us from just making observations of the world, to trying to come up with an *explanation* for those observations (and science is the quest for explanations). In other words, observations are great, but may not be getting you closer to an explanation (which is the real goal). You do an experiment when you're ready to take a guess at an explanation, and then start testing that guess.

In othe words, the very *purpose* of the experiment is to test the hypothesis. That's what helps you design the experiment.

So the purpose of the prediction is to say "if my hypothesis H1 is true, then we will see X." So if you don't get X, then you've just proved your hypothesis false (called a 'negative result') ... and that can be a very valuable finding. It means you've eliminated one good hypothesis and you (or your colleagues) have to go back and find a different one.

But if you do find X, that helps confirm your hypothesis ... but it does not *prove* it. There may be another hypothesis H2 that also would predict X. In that case you need to find another experiment that should give different results if H1 or H2 is true.

You are correct that your hypothesis will bias what you test, and may even bias the design of your experiment. That's where you, as a scientist, are constantly trying to root out those biases ... or else somebody will do it for you when you publish your results.

Hope that helps.

Answer 2

Making A Hypothesis

Answer 3

First of all, look at the very definition of the word hypothesis:

1. A tentative explanation that accounts for a set of facts and can be tested by further investigation; a theory.

So if you want to know WHY something does what it does, you need to put out a guess, and test teh data to see how relevant that guess is. You can be biased towards your hypothesis, but if the data doesn't support it, then you can't conclude that the hypothesis is correct.

Answer 4

Believe me. I have been working in research and development for 30 years. The scientific method is basically a fallacy invented by teachers who have never done real creative science. No one who does research works that way. It's all a bunch of crap. Ask a question is a joke. It all starts with solve a problem or explain a measurement you don't understand. Then you wing it from there. You either have an answer in mind or you need to try some alternatives. Usually, it's pretty much conjecture or an application of a "gut feel" -- sort of like a scientific intuition. There's usually no data to be collected and no analysis of data, You're usually working from simulations. No one forms one answer to a problem that you test and throw out. It's usually a half dozen or so and you simply pick the best at the time -- right or wrong.

Answer 5

The scientific method is used specifically to prove or disprove hypothesis. The reason that the hypothesis is made is not for the original researcher, but the following researchers who are attempting to legitimize the experiments.

Without a hypothesis and the difinitive annotations, it would be impossible to validate other people's research.

Answer 6

A hypothesis is meant to be a simple concept from which you can derive new facts.
When you observe the facts are true then the hypothesis is worth to believe and to use else create a better hypothesis.

Th

Answer 7

You discuss one level of science (controlled lab experimentation) as if it were the whole of science. Science covers many levels of rigor, from the general observatory case study to double blind randomized trials with huge numbers of subjects and controls. All that is necessary for science is that one have a testible hypothesis and data on which to draw some conclusion. Evolutionary Science has both, ID has neither.

Answer 8

If one has any type of scientific mind at all, it would be definitely logical to form at least, a hypothesis.. otherwise how could you carry on with your work?

Answer 9

it's a place to start and you need to support it or disprove it.

yes, it can biased.. With real a scientist, you have to publish your hypothesis and all your experiments.. Then scientists around the world check you hypothesis and experiment to see if it is really true or biased...

talk about pressure.