a scientifically useful hypothesis must be

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

• Where was science invented?
• When did science begin?

scientific hypothesis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• National Center for Biotechnology Information - PubMed Central - On the scope of scientific hypotheses
• LiveScience - What is a scientific hypothesis?
• The Royal Society - Open Science - On the scope of scientific hypotheses

scientific hypothesis , an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an “If…then” statement summarizing the idea and in the ability to be supported or refuted through observation and experimentation. The notion of the scientific hypothesis as both falsifiable and testable was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-born British philosopher Karl Popper .

The formulation and testing of a hypothesis is part of the scientific method , the approach scientists use when attempting to understand and test ideas about natural phenomena. The generation of a hypothesis frequently is described as a creative process and is based on existing scientific knowledge, intuition , or experience. Therefore, although scientific hypotheses commonly are described as educated guesses, they actually are more informed than a guess. In addition, scientists generally strive to develop simple hypotheses, since these are easier to test relative to hypotheses that involve many different variables and potential outcomes. Such complex hypotheses may be developed as scientific models ( see scientific modeling ).

Depending on the results of scientific evaluation, a hypothesis typically is either rejected as false or accepted as true. However, because a hypothesis inherently is falsifiable, even hypotheses supported by scientific evidence and accepted as true are susceptible to rejection later, when new evidence has become available. In some instances, rather than rejecting a hypothesis because it has been falsified by new evidence, scientists simply adapt the existing idea to accommodate the new information. In this sense a hypothesis is never incorrect but only incomplete.

The investigation of scientific hypotheses is an important component in the development of scientific theory . Hence, hypotheses differ fundamentally from theories; whereas the former is a specific tentative explanation and serves as the main tool by which scientists gather data, the latter is a broad general explanation that incorporates data from many different scientific investigations undertaken to explore hypotheses.

Countless hypotheses have been developed and tested throughout the history of science . Several examples include the idea that living organisms develop from nonliving matter, which formed the basis of spontaneous generation , a hypothesis that ultimately was disproved (first in 1668, with the experiments of Italian physician Francesco Redi , and later in 1859, with the experiments of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur ); the concept proposed in the late 19th century that microorganisms cause certain diseases (now known as germ theory ); and the notion that oceanic crust forms along submarine mountain zones and spreads laterally away from them ( seafloor spreading hypothesis ).

• Thesis Action Plan New
• Academic Project Planner

Literature Navigator

Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.

• Why students love us
• Rebels Blog
• Why we are different
• All Products
• Coming Soon

What Makes a Good Hypothesis? Essential Criteria and Examples

A well-formulated hypothesis is a cornerstone of scientific research, providing direction and focus for investigations. It serves as a bridge between theory and experiment, guiding researchers in their quest to explore, test, and validate scientific phenomena. In this article, we will delve into what makes a good hypothesis by examining its essential criteria and providing illustrative examples.

Key Takeaways

• A good hypothesis should be clear and precise, avoiding vague language and ambiguity.
• It must be testable and falsifiable, meaning it can be supported or refuted through experimentation.
• Grounding in existing knowledge is crucial; a hypothesis should be based on prior research or established theories.
• Formulating a hypothesis involves identifying variables and constructing if-then statements to define cause-and-effect relationships.
• Common pitfalls in hypothesis development include vagueness, double-barreled hypotheses, and lack of relevance to research objectives.

Defining a Hypothesis in Research

A hypothesis is a foundational element in scientific research, serving as a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experimentation and observation. It is a precise, testable statement predicting the outcome of a study, typically involving a relationship between an independent variable (what the researcher changes) and a dependent variable (what the researcher measures).

Essential Characteristics of a Good Hypothesis

A well-crafted hypothesis is fundamental to any research endeavor. It serves as a guiding framework for your study, ensuring that your research is focused and meaningful. Here are the essential characteristics that define a good hypothesis:

Formulating a Testable Hypothesis

Creating a testable hypothesis is a crucial step in the research process. A well-formulated hypothesis should be specific and measurable , allowing for clear and definitive testing. This section will guide you through the essential steps to ensure your hypothesis is both testable and meaningful.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid in Hypothesis Development

Avoiding vagueness.

One of the most frequent mistakes in hypothesis development is formulating vague or ambiguous hypotheses . A well-defined hypothesis should be clear and specific , leaving no room for multiple interpretations. For instance, instead of saying, "There is a relationship between study habits and academic performance," specify the type of study habits and the metrics for academic performance.

Steering Clear of Double-Barreled Hypotheses

A double-barreled hypothesis combines two or more variables in a single statement, making it difficult to test each variable independently. For example, "Increased exercise and a balanced diet improve mental health" is problematic because it conflates two distinct variables. Instead, separate the hypotheses: "Increased exercise improves mental health" and "A balanced diet improves mental health."

Ensuring Relevance to Research Objectives

Your hypothesis must align with your research objectives. Irrelevant hypotheses can lead to wasted resources and time. Ensure that your hypothesis directly addresses the core question of your research. For example, if your research focuses on the impact of social media on teenage self-esteem , a hypothesis about social media's effect on adult self-esteem would be misaligned.

By avoiding these common pitfalls, you can develop a robust and testable hypothesis that will significantly enhance the validity of your research.

Examples of Effective Hypotheses

Hypotheses in social sciences.

In social sciences, hypotheses often explore relationships between variables such as behavior, attitudes, and social structures. For instance, a hypothesis might state, "Individuals who participate in community service are more likely to report higher levels of life satisfaction." This hypothesis is clear and specific , making it testable through surveys or observational studies.

Hypotheses in Natural Sciences

Natural sciences frequently involve hypotheses that predict natural phenomena or biological processes. An example could be, "Plants exposed to classical music will grow taller than those that are not." This hypothesis is grounded in existing knowledge about the effects of sound on plant growth and can be tested through controlled experiments.

Hypotheses in Applied Research

Applied research often aims to solve practical problems, leading to hypotheses like, "Implementing a four-day workweek will increase employee productivity." This hypothesis is relevant to organizational studies and can be tested by comparing productivity metrics before and after the implementation of the new work schedule.

Evaluating and Refining Hypotheses

Peer review and feedback.

Engaging in peer review is crucial for refining your hypothesis. Soliciting feedback from colleagues or mentors can provide new perspectives and identify potential weaknesses. This collaborative approach ensures that your hypothesis is robust and well-grounded in targeted research .

Iterative Refinement

Hypothesis development is an iterative process. After initial feedback, you should revisit and revise your hypothesis. This may involve adjusting variables, rephrasing for clarity, or incorporating new data. The goal is to enhance the testability and precision of your hypothesis.

Aligning with Research Design

Your hypothesis must align with your overall research design. Ensure that it is compatible with your methodology, data collection techniques, and analysis plan. This alignment is essential for the hypothesis to be effectively tested and validated within the context of your study.

Evaluating and refining hypotheses is a crucial step in any research process. It allows you to test your assumptions and improve the accuracy of your findings. If you're struggling with this phase, our step-by-step Thesis Action Plan can guide you through it with ease. Visit our website to learn more and claim your special offer now!

In conclusion, crafting a good hypothesis is a fundamental step in the scientific method and essential for conducting meaningful research. A well-formulated hypothesis should be clear, concise, and testable, providing a predictive statement that can be empirically evaluated. By ensuring that your hypothesis is grounded in existing literature and theory, you enhance its validity and relevance. The examples and criteria discussed in this article serve as a guide to help researchers develop robust hypotheses that can withstand rigorous testing and contribute valuable insights to their respective fields. Ultimately, a strong hypothesis not only guides the direction of your research but also lays the foundation for scientific discovery and advancement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a hypothesis in research.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. It serves as a foundation for scientific inquiry, guiding the research process and helping to formulate experiments.

What are the essential characteristics of a good hypothesis?

A good hypothesis should be clear and precise, testable and falsifiable, and grounded in existing knowledge. It should also include an if-then statement that defines the relationship between variables.

How do you formulate a testable hypothesis?

To formulate a testable hypothesis, identify the variables involved, construct an if-then statement, and ensure that the hypothesis is measurable. This process helps in designing experiments that can validate or refute the hypothesis.

What are common pitfalls to avoid when developing a hypothesis?

Common pitfalls include vagueness, double-barreled hypotheses (addressing more than one issue at a time), and lack of relevance to the research objectives. Avoiding these pitfalls ensures that the hypothesis is clear and focused.

Can you provide examples of effective hypotheses?

Effective hypotheses can be found in various fields. For example, in social sciences: 'If social media usage increases, then levels of anxiety among teenagers will increase.' In natural sciences: 'If the temperature of water increases, then the solubility of salt will increase.'

How can hypotheses be evaluated and refined?

Hypotheses can be evaluated and refined through peer review and feedback, iterative refinement, and alignment with the overall research design. This process helps in improving the clarity and testability of the hypothesis.

Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics: A Fun and Informative Guide

Unlocking the Power of Data: A Review of 'Essentials of Modern Business Statistics with Microsoft Excel'

Discovering Statistics Using SAS: A Comprehensive Review

Trending Topics for Your Thesis: What's Hot in 2024

How to Deal with a Total Lack of Motivation, Stress, and Anxiety When Finishing Your Master's Thesis

Mastering the First Step: How to Start Your Thesis with Confidence

Thesis Action Plan

• Blog Articles
• Affiliate Program
• Terms and Conditions
• Payment and Shipping Terms
• Privacy Policy
• Return Policy

© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.

Your cart is currently empty.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples

Published on May 6, 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested by scientific research. If you want to test a relationship between two or more variables, you need to write hypotheses before you start your experiment or data collection .

Example: Hypothesis

Daily apple consumption leads to fewer doctor’s visits.

Table of contents

What is a hypothesis, developing a hypothesis (with example), hypothesis examples, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about writing hypotheses.

A hypothesis states your predictions about what your research will find. It is a tentative answer to your research question that has not yet been tested. For some research projects, you might have to write several hypotheses that address different aspects of your research question.

A hypothesis is not just a guess – it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Variables in hypotheses

Hypotheses propose a relationship between two or more types of variables .

• An independent variable is something the researcher changes or controls.
• A dependent variable is something the researcher observes and measures.

If there are any control variables , extraneous variables , or confounding variables , be sure to jot those down as you go to minimize the chances that research bias  will affect your results.

In this example, the independent variable is exposure to the sun – the assumed cause . The dependent variable is the level of happiness – the assumed effect .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Step 1. Ask a question

Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project.

Step 2. Do some preliminary research

Your initial answer to the question should be based on what is already known about the topic. Look for theories and previous studies to help you form educated assumptions about what your research will find.

At this stage, you might construct a conceptual framework to ensure that you’re embarking on a relevant topic . This can also help you identify which variables you will study and what you think the relationships are between them. Sometimes, you’ll have to operationalize more complex constructs.

Step 3. Formulate your hypothesis

Now you should have some idea of what you expect to find. Write your initial answer to the question in a clear, concise sentence.

4. Refine your hypothesis

You need to make sure your hypothesis is specific and testable. There are various ways of phrasing a hypothesis, but all the terms you use should have clear definitions, and the hypothesis should contain:

• The relevant variables
• The specific group being studied
• The predicted outcome of the experiment or analysis

5. Phrase your hypothesis in three ways

To identify the variables, you can write a simple prediction in  if…then form. The first part of the sentence states the independent variable and the second part states the dependent variable.

In academic research, hypotheses are more commonly phrased in terms of correlations or effects, where you directly state the predicted relationship between variables.

If you are comparing two groups, the hypothesis can state what difference you expect to find between them.

6. Write a null hypothesis

If your research involves statistical hypothesis testing , you will also have to write a null hypothesis . The null hypothesis is the default position that there is no association between the variables. The null hypothesis is written as H 0 , while the alternative hypothesis is H 1 or H a .

• H 0 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has no effect on their final exam scores.
• H 1 : The number of lectures attended by first-year students has a positive effect on their final exam scores.

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Sampling methods
• Simple random sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Cluster sampling
• Likert scales
• Reproducibility

 Statistics

• Null hypothesis
• Statistical power
• Probability distribution
• Effect size
• Poisson distribution

Research bias

• Optimism bias
• Cognitive bias
• Implicit bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Anchoring bias
• Explicit bias

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

A hypothesis is not just a guess — it should be based on existing theories and knowledge. It also has to be testable, which means you can support or refute it through scientific research methods (such as experiments, observations and statistical analysis of data).

Null and alternative hypotheses are used in statistical hypothesis testing . The null hypothesis of a test always predicts no effect or no relationship between variables, while the alternative hypothesis states your research prediction of an effect or relationship.

Hypothesis testing is a formal procedure for investigating our ideas about the world using statistics. It is used by scientists to test specific predictions, called hypotheses , by calculating how likely it is that a pattern or relationship between variables could have arisen by chance.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). How to Write a Strong Hypothesis | Steps & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 4, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/hypothesis/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, construct validity | definition, types, & examples, what is a conceptual framework | tips & examples, operationalization | a guide with examples, pros & cons, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

University of Lethbridge

Science Toolkit

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis (plural: hypotheses) is in its simplest form nothing more than an idea about how the world works. For example, “the moon is made of green cheese” is a valid hypothesis. But there are several characteristics which separate useful scientific hypotheses from those which are impractical. First and foremost, a hypothesis must be testable. We must (at least in principle) be able to design an experiment which will allow us to determine whether the hypothesis is false. Keep in mind that we can never prove any hypothesis is completely true because we can always

English chemist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was one of the first scientists to explicitly adopt a program of hypothesis testing. imagine new circumstances in which it has not been tested, or other possible explanations for the results we have obtained. It is much easier to show, with a high degree of confidence, that a hypothesis is false. If it is not consistent with the results of a well designed and executed experiment, we are forced to accept that the hypothesis is false. If a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is outside the realm of science. Note that the “green-cheese hypothesis” meets this test. A hypothesis should also be plausible. That is, the hypothesis, should be consistent with what we already know about the subject being investigated, and its parts should be logically and mathematically sound. We often celebrate the creative spark by which new hypotheses come to light. But typically that moment of inspiration follows a great deal of perspiration racked up in a thorough review of previous research in the subject. A hypothesis may in the end be a guess, but it should be the best guess possible. Given what we know about astronomy (and cheese production) the”green-cheese hypothesis” is not plausible, and not worth investing much of our time and resources in testing. What are predictions?

The predictions of a hypothesis set out what we expect to see if the hypothesis is true. (This is where we use deductive “If-Then” logic.) Experiments are designed to test specific predictions of the hypothesis. The “green-cheese hypothesis” predicts that material collected from the moon would contain milk proteins and fungi. These predictions could be tested by bringing material back from the moon, and testing its chemical structure. The hypothesis also makes predictions about the wavelengths of light reflected from the moon, a field called spectroscopy. (These predictions have actually been tested, believe it or not. Needless to say the hypothesis was not supported!) Three main factors make a prediction useful in testing a hypothesis: The prediction should be specific to the hypothesis (i.e. no other hypotheses make the same prediction). If several hypotheses predict the same outcome of an experiment, we will need to do further experiments to distinguish between them. The prediction should provide results which are unambiguous. It should be practical and economically feasible to run the experiment. A prediction is really nothing more than a simpler hypothesis — practical to test — derived from a larger hypothesis. Note that a prediction does not have be about the future, but it does have to apply to a situation we have not looked at yet. We are free to use the results of previous experiments to develop a new hypothesis, but we can’t then test our predictions against the results of those old experiments — to do so would be arguing in circles. Are theories different from hypotheses?

A “theory” has no formal definition in science (Style Manual Committee, CBE 1994). Hypotheses which have considerable support from experiments, and which are useful in explaining a fairly wide range of phenomena, are “upgraded” to theories, for example Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, or the Theory of Plate Tectonics (which explains the movement of continents). So a theory is simply a well-tested and widely useful hypothesis, and there’s no strict rules defining when a hypothesis becomes a theory. Theories which are extremely well supported by experiments, particularly those which can be expressed as simple mathematical equations, are often called laws, e.g. Newton’s Law of Gravitation, Kepler’s Laws of Motion, or Mendel’s Laws of Genetics. Again, no one has yet laid out a strict set of rules for defining a natural law. A final term that scientists use to describe their ideas is a model. This dates back to the time when physical models were one of the few tools researchers had in investigating phenomena which were too big or too small to manipulate directly. Physical models are still used in science. Francis Crick and James Watson used a scale model of a DNA molecule to help them deduce its structure (Giere 1997). But scientists also use mathematical models to help them understand how different factors will interact. The development of computers has vastly increased the scope of mathematical models, and made them accessible even to non-mathematicians. Why are hypotheses important?

Philosopher of science Karl Popper likened a hypothesis to a searchlight, which the researcher shines on the relevant portion of nature (Davies 1973). It tells us which experiments are the important ones to perform, and which observations the important ones to make, out of an infinite number of possibilities. Without hypotheses scientists would be reduced to bean counters, and science to a collection of facts without organization or purpose. A hypothesis is the cornerstone used in building an elegant, structured body of knowledge from the apparent chaos of nature. (So they’re pretty important, eh!)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.36(50); 2021 Dec 27

Formulating Hypotheses for Different Study Designs

Durga prasanna misra.

1 Department of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Armen Yuri Gasparyan

2 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.

Olena Zimba

3 Department of Internal Medicine #2, Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University, Lviv, Ukraine.

Marlen Yessirkepov

4 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, South Kazakhstan Medical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Vikas Agarwal

George d. kitas.

5 Centre for Epidemiology versus Arthritis, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports. Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

Graphical Abstract

DEFINING WORKING AND STANDALONE SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

Science is the systematized description of natural truths and facts. Routine observations of existing life phenomena lead to the creative thinking and generation of ideas about mechanisms of such phenomena and related human interventions. Such ideas presented in a structured format can be viewed as hypotheses. After generating a hypothesis, it is necessary to test it to prove its validity. Thus, hypothesis can be defined as a proposed mechanism of a naturally occurring event or a proposed outcome of an intervention. 1 , 2

Hypothesis testing requires choosing the most appropriate methodology and adequately powering statistically the study to be able to “prove” or “disprove” it within predetermined and widely accepted levels of certainty. This entails sample size calculation that often takes into account previously published observations and pilot studies. 2 , 3 In the era of digitization, hypothesis generation and testing may benefit from the availability of numerous platforms for data dissemination, social networking, and expert validation. Related expert evaluations may reveal strengths and limitations of proposed ideas at early stages of post-publication promotion, preventing the implementation of unsupported controversial points. 4

Thus, hypothesis generation is an important initial step in the research workflow, reflecting accumulating evidence and experts' stance. In this article, we overview the genesis and importance of scientific hypotheses and their relevance in the era of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

DO WE NEED HYPOTHESES FOR ALL STUDY DESIGNS?

Broadly, research can be categorized as primary or secondary. In the context of medicine, primary research may include real-life observations of disease presentations and outcomes. Single case descriptions, which often lead to new ideas and hypotheses, serve as important starting points or justifications for case series and cohort studies. The importance of case descriptions is particularly evident in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic when unique, educational case reports have heralded a new era in clinical medicine. 5

Case series serve similar purpose to single case reports, but are based on a slightly larger quantum of information. Observational studies, including online surveys, describe the existing phenomena at a larger scale, often involving various control groups. Observational studies include variable-scale epidemiological investigations at different time points. Interventional studies detail the results of therapeutic interventions.

Secondary research is based on already published literature and does not directly involve human or animal subjects. Review articles are generated by secondary research. These could be systematic reviews which follow methods akin to primary research but with the unit of study being published papers rather than humans or animals. Systematic reviews have a rigid structure with a mandatory search strategy encompassing multiple databases, systematic screening of search results against pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, critical appraisal of study quality and an optional component of collating results across studies quantitatively to derive summary estimates (meta-analysis). 6 Narrative reviews, on the other hand, have a more flexible structure. Systematic literature searches to minimise bias in selection of articles are highly recommended but not mandatory. 7 Narrative reviews are influenced by the authors' viewpoint who may preferentially analyse selected sets of articles. 8

In relation to primary research, case studies and case series are generally not driven by a working hypothesis. Rather, they serve as a basis to generate a hypothesis. Observational or interventional studies should have a hypothesis for choosing research design and sample size. The results of observational and interventional studies further lead to the generation of new hypotheses, testing of which forms the basis of future studies. Review articles, on the other hand, may not be hypothesis-driven, but form fertile ground to generate future hypotheses for evaluation. Fig. 1 summarizes which type of studies are hypothesis-driven and which lead on to hypothesis generation.

STANDARDS OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES

A review of the published literature did not enable the identification of clearly defined standards for working and scientific hypotheses. It is essential to distinguish influential versus not influential hypotheses, evidence-based hypotheses versus a priori statements and ideas, ethical versus unethical, or potentially harmful ideas. The following points are proposed for consideration while generating working and scientific hypotheses. 1 , 2 Table 1 summarizes these points.

Evidence-based data

A scientific hypothesis should have a sound basis on previously published literature as well as the scientist's observations. Randomly generated (a priori) hypotheses are unlikely to be proven. A thorough literature search should form the basis of a hypothesis based on published evidence. 7

Unless a scientific hypothesis can be tested, it can neither be proven nor be disproven. Therefore, a scientific hypothesis should be amenable to testing with the available technologies and the present understanding of science.

Supported by pilot studies

If a hypothesis is based purely on a novel observation by the scientist in question, it should be grounded on some preliminary studies to support it. For example, if a drug that targets a specific cell population is hypothesized to be useful in a particular disease setting, then there must be some preliminary evidence that the specific cell population plays a role in driving that disease process.

Testable by ethical studies

The hypothesis should be testable by experiments that are ethically acceptable. 9 For example, a hypothesis that parachutes reduce mortality from falls from an airplane cannot be tested using a randomized controlled trial. 10 This is because it is obvious that all those jumping from a flying plane without a parachute would likely die. Similarly, the hypothesis that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer cannot be tested by a clinical trial that makes people take up smoking (since there is considerable evidence for the health hazards associated with smoking). Instead, long-term observational studies comparing outcomes in those who smoke and those who do not, as was performed in the landmark epidemiological case control study by Doll and Hill, 11 are more ethical and practical.

Balance between scientific temper and controversy

Novel findings, including novel hypotheses, particularly those that challenge established norms, are bound to face resistance for their wider acceptance. Such resistance is inevitable until the time such findings are proven with appropriate scientific rigor. However, hypotheses that generate controversy are generally unwelcome. For example, at the time the pandemic of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and AIDS was taking foot, there were numerous deniers that refused to believe that HIV caused AIDS. 12 , 13 Similarly, at a time when climate change is causing catastrophic changes to weather patterns worldwide, denial that climate change is occurring and consequent attempts to block climate change are certainly unwelcome. 14 The denialism and misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic, including unfortunate examples of vaccine hesitancy, are more recent examples of controversial hypotheses not backed by science. 15 , 16 An example of a controversial hypothesis that was a revolutionary scientific breakthrough was the hypothesis put forth by Warren and Marshall that Helicobacter pylori causes peptic ulcers. Initially, the hypothesis that a microorganism could cause gastritis and gastric ulcers faced immense resistance. When the scientists that proposed the hypothesis themselves ingested H. pylori to induce gastritis in themselves, only then could they convince the wider world about their hypothesis. Such was the impact of the hypothesis was that Barry Marshall and Robin Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005 for this discovery. 17 , 18

DISTINGUISHING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL HYPOTHESES

Influential hypotheses are those that have stood the test of time. An archetype of an influential hypothesis is that proposed by Edward Jenner in the eighteenth century that cowpox infection protects against smallpox. While this observation had been reported for nearly a century before this time, it had not been suitably tested and publicised until Jenner conducted his experiments on a young boy by demonstrating protection against smallpox after inoculation with cowpox. 19 These experiments were the basis for widespread smallpox immunization strategies worldwide in the 20th century which resulted in the elimination of smallpox as a human disease today. 20

Other influential hypotheses are those which have been read and cited widely. An example of this is the hygiene hypothesis proposing an inverse relationship between infections in early life and allergies or autoimmunity in adulthood. An analysis reported that this hypothesis had been cited more than 3,000 times on Scopus. 1

LESSONS LEARNED FROM HYPOTHESES AMIDST THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the world like no other in recent memory. During this period, various hypotheses emerged, understandably so considering the public health emergency situation with innumerable deaths and suffering for humanity. Within weeks of the first reports of COVID-19, aberrant immune system activation was identified as a key driver of organ dysfunction and mortality in this disease. 21 Consequently, numerous drugs that suppress the immune system or abrogate the activation of the immune system were hypothesized to have a role in COVID-19. 22 One of the earliest drugs hypothesized to have a benefit was hydroxychloroquine. Hydroxychloroquine was proposed to interfere with Toll-like receptor activation and consequently ameliorate the aberrant immune system activation leading to pathology in COVID-19. 22 The drug was also hypothesized to have a prophylactic role in preventing infection or disease severity in COVID-19. It was also touted as a wonder drug for the disease by many prominent international figures. However, later studies which were well-designed randomized controlled trials failed to demonstrate any benefit of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Subsequently, azithromycin 27 , 28 and ivermectin 29 were hypothesized as potential therapies for COVID-19, but were not supported by evidence from randomized controlled trials. The role of vitamin D in preventing disease severity was also proposed, but has not been proven definitively until now. 30 , 31 On the other hand, randomized controlled trials identified the evidence supporting dexamethasone 32 and interleukin-6 pathway blockade with tocilizumab as effective therapies for COVID-19 in specific situations such as at the onset of hypoxia. 33 , 34 Clues towards the apparent effectiveness of various drugs against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in vitro but their ineffectiveness in vivo have recently been identified. Many of these drugs are weak, lipophilic bases and some others induce phospholipidosis which results in apparent in vitro effectiveness due to non-specific off-target effects that are not replicated inside living systems. 35 , 36

Another hypothesis proposed was the association of the routine policy of vaccination with Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) with lower deaths due to COVID-19. This hypothesis emerged in the middle of 2020 when COVID-19 was still taking foot in many parts of the world. 37 , 38 Subsequently, many countries which had lower deaths at that time point went on to have higher numbers of mortality, comparable to other areas of the world. Furthermore, the hypothesis that BCG vaccination reduced COVID-19 mortality was a classic example of ecological fallacy. Associations between population level events (ecological studies; in this case, BCG vaccination and COVID-19 mortality) cannot be directly extrapolated to the individual level. Furthermore, such associations cannot per se be attributed as causal in nature, and can only serve to generate hypotheses that need to be tested at the individual level. 39

IS TRADITIONAL PEER REVIEW EFFICIENT FOR EVALUATION OF WORKING AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES?

Traditionally, publication after peer review has been considered the gold standard before any new idea finds acceptability amongst the scientific community. Getting a work (including a working or scientific hypothesis) reviewed by experts in the field before experiments are conducted to prove or disprove it helps to refine the idea further as well as improve the experiments planned to test the hypothesis. 40 A route towards this has been the emergence of journals dedicated to publishing hypotheses such as the Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics. 41 Another means of publishing hypotheses is through registered research protocols detailing the background, hypothesis, and methodology of a particular study. If such protocols are published after peer review, then the journal commits to publishing the completed study irrespective of whether the study hypothesis is proven or disproven. 42 In the post-pandemic world, online research methods such as online surveys powered via social media channels such as Twitter and Instagram might serve as critical tools to generate as well as to preliminarily test the appropriateness of hypotheses for further evaluation. 43 , 44

Some radical hypotheses might be difficult to publish after traditional peer review. These hypotheses might only be acceptable by the scientific community after they are tested in research studies. Preprints might be a way to disseminate such controversial and ground-breaking hypotheses. 45 However, scientists might prefer to keep their hypotheses confidential for the fear of plagiarism of ideas, avoiding online posting and publishing until they have tested the hypotheses.

SUGGESTIONS ON GENERATING AND PUBLISHING HYPOTHESES

Publication of hypotheses is important, however, a balance is required between scientific temper and controversy. Journal editors and reviewers might keep in mind these specific points, summarized in Table 2 and detailed hereafter, while judging the merit of hypotheses for publication. Keeping in mind the ethical principle of primum non nocere, a hypothesis should be published only if it is testable in a manner that is ethically appropriate. 46 Such hypotheses should be grounded in reality and lend themselves to further testing to either prove or disprove them. It must be considered that subsequent experiments to prove or disprove a hypothesis have an equal chance of failing or succeeding, akin to tossing a coin. A pre-conceived belief that a hypothesis is unlikely to be proven correct should not form the basis of rejection of such a hypothesis for publication. In this context, hypotheses generated after a thorough literature search to identify knowledge gaps or based on concrete clinical observations on a considerable number of patients (as opposed to random observations on a few patients) are more likely to be acceptable for publication by peer-reviewed journals. Also, hypotheses should be considered for publication or rejection based on their implications for science at large rather than whether the subsequent experiments to test them end up with results in favour of or against the original hypothesis.

Hypotheses form an important part of the scientific literature. The COVID-19 pandemic has reiterated the importance and relevance of hypotheses for dealing with public health emergencies and highlighted the need for evidence-based and ethical hypotheses. A good hypothesis is testable in a relevant study design, backed by preliminary evidence, and has positive ethical and clinical implications. General medical journals might consider publishing hypotheses as a specific article type to enable more rapid advancement of science.

Disclosure: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Author Contributions:

• Data curation: Gasparyan AY, Misra DP, Zimba O, Yessirkepov M, Agarwal V, Kitas GD.

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

• Make an observation or observations.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

• This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
• Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
• This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. ​​ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01  

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm  

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html  

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group  

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml  

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "​Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone  

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What  

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Defense system common to all life came from 'Asgard'

Giant underwater avalanche decimated Atlantic seafloor 60,000 years ago, 1st-of-its-kind map reveals

Earthquakes can trigger quartz into forming giant gold nuggets, study finds

Most Popular

• 2 Saturn at opposition: How to see the ringed planet at its biggest and brightest this week
• 3 World's biggest battery coming to Maine — and it could store 130 million times more energy than your laptop
• 4 Early galaxies weren't mystifyingly massive after all, James Webb Space Telescope finds
• 5 Are people more honest when they're drunk?

Language selection

• Français fr

WxT Search form

Science shorts 2: the scientific method, what is science.

Science is a way of seeking to explain the world around us, either by simply observing the world or by experimentally manipulating it in some way. Science proceeds by posing familiar questions: What? Where? When? How? and Why? Observations, estimates, and patterns are three different kinds of factual claims that describe what occurred, where it occurred or when it occurred. Answers to how and why questions are factual claims of the fourth kind, namely causal hypotheses .

Scientific hypotheses

What makes a causal hypothesis “scientific”? For both scientists and the courts, Footnote 1 scientific hypotheses are those that can be empirically tested.

Empirically testable hypotheses satisfy two conditions. First, the hypothesis must be refutable. Footnote 2 A refutable hypothesis is one for which there exists the logical possibility of observations that would be considered inconsistent with the hypothesis and hence, would lead us to conclude the hypothesis is false .

Second, empirical testability requires that contradictory observations be not only logically possible but capable of being collected in practice . Footnote 3

The question of whether an hypothesis is scientific is a different question than whether it is true . For example, the claim that God made life on earth could be true. But whatever its truth, this factual claim (of the fourth kind) is not scientific because there are no observations that are, even in principle, inconsistent with it: it fails to satisfy the criterion of refutability.

Testing scientific hypotheses: The scientific method

Testing a scientific hypothesis proceeds by three basic steps. The first involves formulation of a clear, unambiguous scientific hypothesis. The second step involves the design and prosecution of a study in which the hypothesis under investigation generates at least one prediction .

Predictions are simply the study results one expects if the hypothesis under investigation is true.

Third, scientists compare the study results to those predicted. If study results match the predictions sufficiently well, then the hypothesis is supported — the results are consistent with the hypothesis being true . On the other hand, if they do not match, the hypothesis is not supported — the results are consistent with the hypothesis being false .

We can think of scientific hypotheses and predictions as a type of IF-THEN statement: IF the hypothesis is true THEN the study results should match those predicted. (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. A simple example of the scientific method. We want to figure out why a light doesn’t work. One hypothesis is that the bulb is burnt out. To test this hypothesis, there are several different experiments that could be conducted, each of which yields a specific prediction. For example, in experiment 2, if the cause of the non-functioning light is a burnt-out bulb (the causal hypothesis), then the light should work when the old bulb is replaced (prediction). On the other hand, if it still doesn’t work, then the correct explanation is unlikely to be a burnt-out bulb — perhaps the light is unplugged!

We tend to think of science as being concerned only with the physical or natural world. But much of the social sciences is concerned with understanding the reasons why people behave (or misbehave) as they do. Explanations for individual or group behavior can be formulated as scientific hypotheses and tested accordingly.

Hypothesis testing as refutation

Suppose observed results match predictions. Can we conclude that the hypothesis is true? No, for a simple reason: there are always alternative explanations (hypotheses) for observed results. For example, although the light working after the bulb is replaced is consistent with the hypothesis of a burnt-out bulb, it is also consistent with the hypothesis that the power to the house was off and was restored between the time the old bulb was removed and the new one installed. So it is entirely possible that observed results match predictions yet the hypothesis is nonetheless false.

Scientific hypotheses cannot be proven because for any set of results, there are always alternate hypotheses that generate the same predictions, and scientists cannot test all possible hypotheses. This means that scientific hypotheses that scientists accept as “facts” are simply those that have been subjected to the most rigorous and exhausting testing and have failed to be refuted. In the words of the late paleontologist Stephen J. Gould:

“In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’” Footnote 4

Note the “provisional assent” here: even scientific hypotheses for which there is compelling supporting evidence may turn out to be false, or at least incomplete. In science, there are no absolute truths.

Science for decision-making

All decisions are based on (usually implicit) causal hypotheses that connect the decision with desired or undesired outcomes. It is these underlying hypotheses that give rise to the predicted effects of alternative decisions.

For decision-makers, explicit enumeration of all underlying causal hypotheses is important because it:

• clearly identifies the relevant science, that is, science that provides evidence concerning the truth, or otherwise, of at least one underlying hypothesis. This dramatically increases the efficiency of evidence gathering as well as clearly proscribing irrelevant science.
• reduces the risk of “unanticipated” consequences of policy decisions. Theories of change explicitly identify the underlying causal pathways — simply collections of hypotheses — that link candidate decisions with desired and undesired outcomes. Explicit consideration of these causal pathways can bring to light potential effects of candidate decisions that might not otherwise have been considered, reducing the risk of unanticipated consequences. Footnote 5

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 Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• Scientific Hypothesis Examples
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• Scientific Variable
• What Is an Experimental Constant?
• What Is a Controlled Experiment?
• What Is the Difference Between a Control Variable and Control Group?
• DRY MIX Experiment Variables Acronym
• Random Error vs. Systematic Error
• The Role of a Controlled Variable in an Experiment

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Perspective
• Published: 03 September 2024

Translational Therapeutics

The scienthetic method: from Aristotle to AI and the future of medicine

• Karim I. Budhwani   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8823-1695 1 , 2  

British Journal of Cancer ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

• Cancer models
• Machine learning

While AI holds immense potential for accelerating advances in oncology, we must be intentional in developing and applying these technologies responsibly, equitably, and ethically. One path forward is for cancer care providers and researchers to be among the architects of AI and its adoption in medicine. Given the limitations of traditional top-down, hypothesis-driven design in an exponentially expanding data universe, on one hand, and the danger of spiraling into artificial ignorance (ai) from rushing into a purely ‘synthetic’ method on the other, this article proposes a ‘scienthetic’ method that synergizes AI with human wisdom. Tracing philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method from Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to the present, it examines the critical juncture at which AI stands to either augment or undermine new knowledge. The scienthetic method seeks to harness the power and capabilities of AI responsibly, equitably, and ethically to transcend the limitations of both the traditional scientific method and purely synthetic methods, by intentionally weaving machine intelligence together with human wisdom.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 24 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 10,48 € per issue

Buy this article

• Purchase on SpringerLink
• Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Suter R. Aristotle and the Scientific Method. Sci Mon. 1939;49:468–72. http://www.jstor.org/stable/16892 .

Google Scholar  

Eriksson M, Czene K, Vachon C, Conant EF, Hall P. Long-Term Performance of an Image-Based Short-Term Risk Model for Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2536–45. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.01564 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Manz CR, Chen J, Liu M, Chivers C, Regli SH, Braun J, et al. Validation of a Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict 180-Day Mortality for Outpatients with Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:1723–30. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4331 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Aklilu JG, Sun MW, Goel S, Bartoletti S, Rau A, Olsen G, et al. Artificial Intelligence Identifies Factors Associated with Blood Loss and Surgical Experience in Cholecystectomy. NEJM AI. 2024;1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa2300088 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Budhwani KI, Patel ZH, Guenter RE, Charania AA. A hitchhiker’s guide to cancer models. Trends Biotechnol. 2022:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2022.04.003 .

Johnson S, Parsons M, Dorff T, Moran MS, Ward JH, Cohen SA, et al. Cancer Misinformation and Harmful Information on Facebook and Other Social Media: A Brief Report. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2022;114:1036–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djab141 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Foksinska A, Crowder CM, Crouse AB, Henrikson J, Byrd WE, Rosenblatt G, et al. The precision medicine process for treating rare disease using the artificial intelligence tool mediKanren. Front Artif Intell. 2022;5. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.910216 .

Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596:583–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 .

Ren F, Aliper A, Chen J, Zhao H, Rao S, Kuppe C, et al. A Small-Molecule TNIK Inhibitor Targets Fibrosis in Preclinical and Clinical Models. Nat Biotechnol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02143-0 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This and associated works were supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (TI-2321805), the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (1R43CA254493-01), The Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama, and Innovate Alabama. I am also grateful to my colleagues at The Frederick National Lab for Cancer Research, The James Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, The O’Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, and the Aga Khan University Nairobi Cancer Centre for their support and collaboration. I would also like to acknowledge OpenAI ChatGPT for its critical analysis of my manuscript, exemplifying the synergy between human and machine intelligence that this article suggests.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CerFlux, Birmingham, AL, USA

Karim I. Budhwani

The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All contributions were from the single author.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karim I. Budhwani .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

KIB’s work has been funded by the NIH, the NSF, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation of Alabama, and Innovate Alabama. He is CEO-Scientist of CerFlux and is co-inventor of issued (and pending) patents pertaining to in vitro, in silico, ex vivo, and cancer supermodel technologies.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Budhwani, K.I. The scienthetic method: from Aristotle to AI and the future of medicine. Br J Cancer (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02841-1

Download citation

Received : 07 June 2024

Revised : 15 August 2024

Accepted : 27 August 2024

Published : 03 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02841-1

Share this article

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

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies