Scientific hypothesis?

Question

Is a scientifc hypothesis accepted if the is no way to demonstrate that the hypothesis is wrong? Please explain!! im confused..

Answer 1

A hypothesis is a testable guess.

More formally, it is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Sometimes it is an idea taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.

The former (tentative explanation) *requires* that it be testable by investigation. If there is no way to demostrate its validity or lack thereof, the premise does not fit the definition.

The latter (assumtion for the sake of argument) is more of a rhetorical than a scientific device.

If by "accepted" you mean that the hypothesis is valid for what it is, then the second case is allowed by the conditions of your question. However, if "accepted" means that the *conclusions* drawn from the hypothesis are necessarily valid, then the answer is no.

In other words, a scientific hypothesis is accepted as valid whether or not it can be proven wrong, just as long as it is testable by investigation. "The earth is flat" is acceptable as a valid hypothesis, which investigation has proven incorrect.
"Angels are spirits" is not testable by scientific inquiry, and so is not a vaild scientific hypothesis (although it may be a valid rhetorical or theological hypothesis).

Answer 2

Why is this in chemistry? Anyway, for example in statistics, you have the topic of hypothesis testing where you have a NULL hypothesis and the ALTERNATE hypothesis. Once you have shown that the NULL hypothesis is wrong, you can reject the NULL hypothesis and accept the ALTERNATE hypothesis.

So, in other words, the acceptable practise is to show that the opposite of the hypothesis is wrong before you can claim the the hypothesis is acceptable.

In either case, it does not mean that anything is right or wrong, just whether it is scientifically justified or not. Maybe in the future, something scientifically proven correct could turn out to be wrong (MAYBE).

E.g. The hypothesis that God is a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" cannot be demonstrated to be wrong. So does that mean that its accepted? No. You have to show that the opposite of it is wrong, ie show that the the hypothesis God is NOT a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is wrong, which you are also unable to do. Just because something cannot be proven wrong doesn't mean it can be accepted.

Answer 3

Well yes, in that case it's called a theory. Theories are always speculated and tossed around by scientist to explain some things. Experimental work then seeks to confirm or unconfirm that hypothesis, in which usually it is modified in one way or the other. As more experiments and findings result you get a more 'correct' theory that seems to fit the facts, but is still liable to be annihilated by sound contradictory experimental findings.

The goal of an experiment is also to confirm or unconfirm the hypothesis. The hypothesis can be easily tossed out if wrong, but the theory will need to be cleverly modified to fit observations.

That means a theory is accepted until proven wrong, sort of like 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'.

However there are some things that have only happened once, or that there may remain no reliable means of proving yet. They still can exist as valid theories. People used to theorise the earth was flat...and they were correct for a while with limited observations. Newton's classical mechanics were taken as accurate until relativity reassigned it as an 'accurate approximation' at low speeds. But relativity could one day be tossed out still. Such is science.

Answer 4

No. You have to demonstrate that the hypothesis is RIGHT for you to be able to formulate a theory.

Answer 5

it doesn't need to be accepted to be a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is just a guess.

Answer 6

no you have to be able to test it.