To Hypothesize or Not to Hypothesize? That’s the Question

            Too many people argue that hypothesis is the ‘if … then’ expectation of the experiment based upon some influential background research and other reasonably strong findings from other studies that have already been done on the same topic. Actually, I would partially agree with that as the argument definitely supports the idea that hypothesis is the premise of the experiment from guesses/estimations which are derived from the knowledge we have got via results of research made earlier. But does this imply that it is always wise and to our benefit to hypothesize before jumping into a research? Seriously, just think about it for a second. What in the earth would you loss if you would do so? Are there any disadvantages of including and following a hypothesis in your study at all? I believe that you already have your answers to these questions ready in your mind. Anyways, I would be honored to share mine with you as follows.

            According to David J. Glass and Ned Hall’s A Brief History of the Hypothesis, the hypothesis is a historic, controversial and complex entity. It clearly has several different philosophical assumptions, ways of understanding its concept and, most of all, applications with their effects and consequences, respectively. The controversy about the hypothesis ranges from it being totally rejected by Sir Isaac Newton to David Hume’s tendency to support it. Hypothesis majorly deals with reasoning as the assumptions and guesses that we would make are based on it. Basically, there are two types of reasoning that are out for grabs in the debates about hypothesis and they are known as deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the ‘shrinkage’ of a general case down to a specific instance while inductive reasoning, or induction, is the ‘expansion’ of a specific case(s) to a general rule. So, hypothesis mainly corresponds to a deductive reasoning. It is least-likely that an individual would not read about the very minute details of DNA transcription and translation to hypothesize about the very broad concept of an organism’s behavioral changes; instead it would be much more productive and meaningful to study the environment or the genus that includes the species which is even more general than what is being tested in its appearance in the community and the system’s complexity.

            To clarify my stand, I am neither supporting nor opposing against, completely, induction and deduction. I strongly believe that hypothesis is a type of deductive reasoning and this has fairly both pros and cons into a research. As a phenomenon does not hold true to all the cases presented as evidences, hypothesizing about any test might be a total failure to the experiment by guiding the whole procedure wrongly. I would like to argue that it is highly unwise to trust the whole experiment to an assumption which we might not be sure about or misunderstanding it to the point that it could through the whole project off. Although a hypothesis might be correct and reasonable, that does not mean it is the best way of understanding the experiment and learn all the objectives of it. In general, I would argue that hypothesis is not a necessity in a laboratory experiments and looking for other alternatives would be a better path to follow than keeping it there. I barely agree with Newton when it comes down to this point. There is no need to deny the few advantages of hypothesis unlike him but it is also not necessarily the backbone of the experiment as it can definitely get to become in some cases either. The usage and dependence of most of us on hypothesis is the spread of the positives about it in our natural sciences courses throughout the years and decades of our schooling experiences from generations to generations.

In conclusion, hypothesis can do badly by biasing the results of the experiment to any extent by influencing the researcher. There are infinite possibilities of ‘if … then’s’ from which not even one of them is advantageous for us to understand the concept of the study. There is no single doubt that repeated observations, of course, are tremendously important to have a clearer understanding of a concept; but this does not mean that it is an ideal way of learning new things at all. Guessing is not learning the real deal; is it? I hope that I have answered the questions that have been raised above but this is just my perspective; so, what’s yours? 

  (Word count: 755)           

Work Cited

Glass, DJ and N. Hall. A brief history of the hypothesis. Cell. 2008 Aug 8; 134(3):378-81.