Physical hypothesis. Basic physical hypotheses. The important role of the hypothesis

slide 2

What is a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is a statement that is neither true until it has been confirmed, nor false until it has been refuted, but is used as a working version. Most often, hypotheses are used in natural sciences such as physics and describe the causes natural phenomena. The hypothesis, which was confirmed, becomes the basis for the following assumptions. Hypothesis is the word Greek origin, literally translated as "foundation", "assumption". In the modern sense, not a proven theory or assumption. A hypothesis is put forward on the basis of observations or experiments. Subsequently, the hypothesis can be proven, which indicates the validity of this hypothesis, or refuted, which indicates its fallacy.

slide 3

Types of Hypotheses

Scientific hypothesis Metaphysical hypothesis

slide 4

Scientific Hypothesis is...

… such a hypothesis that explains all known scientific facts based on the use of a mental abstract model of the objects and phenomena of the real world under study, does not contain internal logical contradictions, and from the analysis of the properties of the model derives consequences that were previously unknown and allow for experimental verification. After checking the predicted consequences, the scientific hypothesis can either be confirmed or refuted by the results of the experiment. With experimental confirmation of the predicted consequences, the hypothesis is recognized as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.

slide 5

scientific hypothesis

The existence of the atomic nucleus Ernest Rutherford

slide 6

Scientific Hypothesis

Existence of electromagnetic waves Maxwell

Slide 7

Scientists

Isaac Newton Einstein

Slide 8

A metaphysical hypothesis is...

… untestable hypotheses. The impossibility of scientific proof or refutation of a metaphysical hypothesis does not deprive it of the right to exist. To accept or reject such a hypothesis is a matter of a person's belief in its truth or disbelief in it.

HYPOTHESIS

Philosophy: encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from the Greek. hypothesis - foundation, basis)

a well-thought-out assumption, expressed in the form of scientific concepts, which should in a certain place fill in the gaps in empirical knowledge or connect various empirical knowledge into a whole, or provide a preliminary explanation for a fact or group of facts. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is supported by facts: “Hypotheses non fingo” (lat.) - “I do not invent hypotheses” (Newton). A hypothesis can exist only as long as it does not contradict the reliable facts of experience, otherwise it becomes just a fiction; it is verified (verified) by the relevant facts of experience, especially by experiment, obtaining truths; it is fruitful as heuristic or if it can lead to new knowledge and new ways of knowing. “The essential hypothesis is that it leads to new observations and investigations, thanks to which our conjecture is confirmed, refuted or modified, in short, expanded” (Mach). The facts of experience in any limited scientific field, together with realized, rigorously proven hypotheses or binding, only possible hypotheses, form a theory (Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1906).

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from Greek ὑπόϑεσις - basis, assumption)

1) A special kind of assumption about directly unobservable forms of connection between phenomena or the causes that produce these phenomena.

3) A complex technique, which includes both putting forward an assumption and its subsequent proof.

A hypothesis is an assumption. G. acts in a dual role: either as an assumption about a particular form of connection between the observed phenomena, or as an assumption about the connection between the observed phenomena and ext. the basis for their production. G. of the first kind are called descriptive, and the second - descriptive. As a scientific assumption, G. differs from an arbitrary guess in that it satisfies a number of requirements. Fulfillment of these requirements forms the consistency of G. The first condition: G. must explain the whole range of phenomena, for the analysis of which it is put forward, if possible not contradicting the previously established. facts and science. provisions. However, if the explanation of these phenomena on the basis of non-contradiction with known facts fails, G. are put forward, entering into with previously proven provisions. So many foundations arose. G. science.

Second condition: verifiability in principle D. A hypothesis is an assumption about some directly unobservable basis of phenomena and can be verified only by comparing the consequences deduced from it with experience. The inaccessibility of the consequences to experimental verification means the unverifiability of D. It is necessary to distinguish between two kinds of unverifiability: practical. and fundamental. The first is that the consequences cannot be verified at the present level of development of science and technology, but in principle they can be verified. Virtually unverifiable in this moment G. cannot be discarded, but they must be put forward with a certain caution; can't concentrate his core. efforts to develop such G. The fundamental unverifiability of G. lies in the fact that it cannot give consequences that allow comparison with experience. A striking example of fundamentally unverifiable H. provides the explanation proposed by Lorentz and Fitzgerald for the absence of an interference pattern in Michelson's experiment. The shortening of the length of any body in the direction of its motion, which they propose, cannot be detected in principle by any measurement, since along with the moving body, the scale bar experiences the same contraction, with the help of which the swarm will be produced. G., which do not lead to any observable consequences, except for those for the explanation of which they are specially put forward, and will be fundamentally unverifiable. The requirement of fundamental verifiability of G. is, in the very essence of the matter, a deeply materialistic requirement, although he tries to use it in his own interests, especially, which emasculates the content from the requirement of verifiability, reducing it to the notorious beginning of fundamental observability (see Verifiability principle) or to the demand for an operationalist definition of concepts (see Operationalism). The positivist speculations on the requirement of fundamental verifiability should not lead to the declaration of this very requirement as positivist. The fundamental verifiability of a geometry is an extremely important condition for its consistency, directed against arbitrary constructions that do not allow any external manifestations and do not manifest themselves in any way outside.

The third condition is the applicability of geography to the widest possible range of phenomena. From G. should be derived not only those phenomena, for the explanation of which it is specially put forward, but also the broadest possible phenomena, directly, it would seem, not connected with the original ones. Since it is a single coherent whole and the separate exists only in that connection, which leads to the general, G., proposed to explain c.-l. a relatively narrow group of phenomena (if it correctly covers them), will certainly prove to be valid for explaining some other phenomena. On the contrary, if G. does not explain anything, except for that specific. group of phenomena, for the understanding of which it was specially proposed, this means that it does not grasp the general basis of these phenomena, what does it mean. its part is arbitrary. Such G. are hypotheses, i.e. G., put forward exclusively and only to explain this, few. groups of facts. For example, the theory of quanta was originally proposed by Planck in 1900 to explain one comparatively narrow group of facts - the radiation of a completely black body. Main the assumption of this G. about the existence of discrete portions of energy - quanta - was unusual and sharply contradicted the classical. representations. However, the quantum theory, for all its unusualness and apparent nature of the ad hoc theory, turned out to be able to explain an exceptionally wide range of facts in the future. In a private area of black body radiation, she felt common ground, revealing itself in many other phenomena. This is the nature of scientific G. in general.

The fourth condition: the greatest possible fundamental simplicity D. This should not be understood as a requirement for ease, accessibility or simplicity of mathematical. forms G. Valid. G.'s simplicity lies in her, based on a single basis, to explain as wide a range of various phenomena as possible, without resorting to the arts. constructions and arbitrary assumptions, without putting forward more and more G. ad hoc in each new case. Simplicity of scientific G. and theories have a source and should not be confused with a subjectivist interpretation of simplicity in the spirit, for example, of the principle of economy of thought. In understanding the objective source of simplicity, scientific. theories there is a fundamental difference between metaphysical. and dialectic. materialism, which proceeds from the recognition of the inexhaustibility of the material world and rejects metaphysical. belief in some abs. the simplicity of nature. G.'s simplicity is relative, since the "simplicity" of the phenomena being explained is relative. Behind the seeming simplicity of the observed phenomena reveals their ext. complexity. Science constantly has to abandon old simple concepts and create new ones that may at first glance seem much more complex. The task is not to stop at stating this complexity, but to go further, to the disclosure of that inner. unity and dialectic. contradictions, that common connection, which underlies this complexity. Therefore, with the further progress of knowledge, new theoretical. constructions necessarily acquire a fundamental simplicity, although not coinciding with the simplicity of the former theory. Compliance with the basic conditions of consistency G. does not yet turn it into a theory, but in their absence, the assumption cannot at all claim the role of scientific. G.

A hypothesis is a conclusion. G.'s inference consists in transferring the subject from one judgment, which has a given predicate, to another, which has a similar and some unknown yet. M. Karinsky was the first to turn to G. as a special conclusion; The nomination of any G. always begins with the study of the range of phenomena for the explanation of which this G. is created. With logical from the point of view, this means that a setting judgment is being formulated for the construction of a G.: X is P1 and P2 and P3, etc., where P1, P2 are the features of the studied group of phenomena discovered by the study, and X is the carrier of these features unknown so far (their ). Among the existing judgments, one is looking for one that, if possible, would contain the same particular predicates P1, P2, etc., but with the subject () already known: S is P1 and P2 and P3, etc. From the two existing judgments, the conclusion is made: X is P1 and P2 and P3; S is P1 and P2 and P3, hence X = S.

The above conclusion is G.'s conclusion (in this sense, a hypothetical conclusion), and the judgment obtained in the conclusion is G. In appearance, hypothetical. the conclusion resembles the second categorical figure. syllogism, but with two affirmative premises, which, as you know, is a logically illegal form of inference. But it turns out to be external. The predicate of the setting judgment, in contrast to the predicate in the premises of the second figure, has complex structure and to a greater or lesser extent turns out to be specific, which gives the possibility of qualities. estimates of the probability that when the predicates coincide, there is a similarity in the subjects. It is known that in the presence of a general distinguishing figure, the second figure gives a reliable one and, with two, it approves. judgments. In this case, the coincidence of predicates makes the probability of coincidence of subjects equal to 1. In the case of non-selective judgments, this probability ranges from 0 to 1. Ordinary asserts. the premises in the second figure do not give grounds for estimating this probability, and therefore it is logically invalid here. In a hypothetical inference, this is produced on the basis of the complex nature of the predicate, which more or less approximates it to the specific. the predicate of the distinguishing proposition.

The American astrophysicist Abraham Loeb, having carried out the corresponding calculations, found out that, in principle, the first life could appear in the Universe as early as 15 million years after the Big Bang. The conditions at that time were such that liquid water could exist on solid planets even when they were outside the habitable zone of their star.

To some, the question of when, in principle, life could appear in our Universe, may seem idle and insignificant. What do we care about at what point in time the conditions of our universe became such that organic molecules the ability to create complex structures? After all, we know for sure that this happened on our planet no later than 3.9 billion years ago (this is the age of the most ancient sedimentary rocks on Earth, in which traces of the vital activity of the first microorganisms were found), and this information, at first glance, may be enough in order to build on this basis all hypotheses about the development of life on Earth.

In fact, this question is much more complex and interesting for earthlings from a practical point of view. Take, for example, the panspermia hypothesis, which is still very popular today, according to which life does not originate on each planet separately, but, having appeared once at the very beginning of the development of the Universe, travels to different galaxies, systems and planets (in the form of the so-called "life disputes"). "- the simplest organisms that are at rest during the journey). However, there is still no reliable evidence for this hypothesis, since living organisms have not yet been found on any planet other than the Earth.

However, if direct evidence cannot be obtained, then scientists can also use indirect evidence - for example, if it is established at least theoretically that life could have originated earlier than 4 billion years ago (recall, the age of our Universe is estimated as 13.830 ± 0.075 billion years, so there was, as you can see, more than enough time for this), then the hypothesis of panspermia from the category of philosophical will already pass into the rank of strictly scientific. It should be noted that one of the most ardent adherents of this theory, academician V. I. Vernadsky generally believed that life is the same fundamental property of the matter of the Universe as, for example, gravity. Thus, it is logical to assume that the appearance of living organisms is quite possible at the earliest stages of the origin of our universe.

Probably, it was precisely such thoughts that prompted Dr. Abraham Loeb from Harvard University (USA) to think about the question of when life could have arisen in the Universe at all and what were the conditions for its existence in the earliest era. He made the appropriate calculations using CMB data and found that this could well have happened when the first star-forming halos appeared inside our Hubble volume (this is the name for the region of the expanding Universe surrounding the observer, outside of which objects move away from the observer at a speed greater than than the speed of light), that is, only after ... 15 million years after big bang.

According to the researcher's calculations, in this early era, the average density of matter in the universe was a million times higher than today, and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background was 273-300 K (0-30 °C). It follows from this: if then there were solid planets, then liquid water on their surface could exist regardless of the degree of their distance from their sun. If we explain this by the example of the objects of our solar system, then the boundless oceans could freely splash on Uranus's satellite Triton, and on Jupiter's moon Europe, and on the famous Saturnian Titan and even on dwarf planets like Pluto and objects from the Oort cloud (provided that the latter have gravity sufficient to hold water masses )!

Thus, it turns out that already 15 million years after the birth of the Universe, there were all the conditions for life to arise on some planets - after all, the presence of water is the main condition for starting the process of formation of complex organic molecules from simple components. True, Dr. Loeb notices that there is one “but” in his constructions. A date 15 million years from the Big Bang corresponds to a redshift parameter z (it determines the amount of displacement relative to the point where the observer is located) with a value of 110. And according to previous calculations, the time of appearance in the Universe heavy elements, without which the formation of solid planets is impossible, corresponds to a z value of 78, and this is already 700 million years after the same Big Bang. In other words, water in liquid form then had nothing to exist on, since there were no solid planets themselves.

However, Abraham Loeb notes, this is exactly the picture that emerges if we admit that the distribution of matter 15 million years after the birth of our universe was Gaussian (that is, normal). However, it is quite possible that it was quite different in those days. And if so, then the likelihood that somewhere in the Universe there were already systems with solid planets is very, very high. Proof of this assumption can serve as objects that astronomers often find in recent times are stars and galaxies whose age is much younger than the end of the reionization epoch (after which the appearance of heavy elements began).

Thus, if Dr. Loeb's calculations are correct, it turns out that life could have arisen on literally every planet in the early universe. Moreover, it turns out that the first planetary systems should be filled with it practically "to the eyeballs", since at least some of these planets have retained their potential suitability for life for a very long time. Well, since no one can still refute the potential possibility of the transfer of living organisms and their spores by meteorite-cometary means, it is logical to assume that in this case, even after the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation dropped, these "pioneers of life" could colonize other planetary bodies even before the death of their primary biospheres - after all, the benefit of the distance between planetary systems at that time were a huge number of times less than today.

Main physical hypotheses

Attraction of different kinds, energy, complexity, speed and resilience

The universe consists of points mutually influencing each other by the force of gravity. Its general law is unknown. It is only known that as the distance between them decreases, the attraction increases very rapidly. Particular laws of attraction are known. This attraction is called either gravitation, or partial, or electric, or magnetic attraction.

It is easier to assume that these material points, or centers of forces, are different. They themselves are immutable and eternal. They move from mutual attraction. They cannot meet, being in size geometric points. The reason for their appearance is unknown. The universe consists of only these points.

Compound material points, similar to the multiple combination of suns or planetary systems, forms particles called atoms, molecules, crystals, cells, plants and animals.

Time is infinite - behind and ahead. Therefore, the particles known to us have infinite complexity, a certain volume, and as a result, they can meet, that is, knock and repel each other. The complication and decomposition of particles takes place simultaneously. In general, over the course of decillions of years, complication occurs (there is a special work of mine regarding this).

The totality of different atoms, particles, cells and their combinations, that is, plants and animals, constitutes matter, or substance. It changes form, but is not destroyed and does not reappear, that is, it does not change in its quantity. It is permanent.

Every particle of matter is determined by time, space and force; the feeling also probably depends on the latter. (Indeed, nothing exists outside of time and space. Forces and feelings also always manifest themselves. There is nothing in space except atoms. What can one feel if not them or matter.) Matter has these three properties. They are inseparable from her. But since time is always and everywhere, then also matter is always and everywhere. Time is infinite, which means that space and the distribution of forces are infinite. After all, time is a property of matter. We meet this property everywhere, it is a sign of matter. Therefore, matter is always and everywhere. For example, one of the signs of a person is speech. If we hear the voice of a man, even though we have not seen him, then there is also a man. Even the speech of the gramophone indicates the existence of man. Indeed, if there were no man, there would be no gramophone. Also, the image of a person in a picture or in a mirror speaks of him. Similarly, the certainty of infinite time speaks undoubtedly of the boundless expansion of space, forces and matter. However, in exceptional cases, human sounds and images can appear without a person.

The attraction of particles gives rise to their movement. The more approaching the particles, the more their speed, that is, the more energy is detected. If at least two particles merge, then an infinitely large amount of energy would be released. But there can be no complete merger. The Universe only strives to merge its parts, but it can never achieve it. In fact, this merging is hindered by their finite volume, their ever-increasing speed and the resulting repulsive force.

Movement is a clear energy, the energy of movement, or kinetic, and attraction is a spare, or potential (possible). When a planet moves away from the Sun, its speed decreases. This means that the apparent energy falls, and the reserve grows. But the explicit one can again manifest itself in motion if the planet approaches the Sun. Also, a falling stone shows obvious energy and reduces the spare, that is, the possibility of falling.

The amount of one and the other energy, that is, their total sum, is invariable and infinite: not only because of the infinity of the universe, but also because of the possible continuous compaction of matter. From it comes force, from force comes motion, or apparent energy. Therefore, matter, force, attraction and energy are essentially the same. There is no matter without energy, and there can be no energy without matter. Also, where there is feeling, there must be matter. And vice versa - where there is matter, there is also feeling, that is, life. It turns out that life is everywhere. Only it is very diverse in quantitative terms. How diverse are the numbers, just as diverse in tension is life.

So, the whole universe and all its parts are alive, although in different ways - in terms of strength or quantity.

Each particle of matter lives differently, depending on the surrounding and influencing particles: one life for hydrogen, another for a particle of gold, a third for a particle of water, a fourth for a plant cell, a fifth for animal cells, a sixth for cells of higher beings, and so on ad infinitum.

When the movement is free and rectilinear, then the moving particles, due to favorable conditions of position, direction and speed, merge into one, as it were, a “planetary” group. Then the speed of the center of gravity of the system decreases in accordance with the increase in the total mass. So, the speed of all known atoms in the vapor state is inverse square root from their masses. For example, masses: 100 64 49 25 6 1 speeds: 1/10 1/8 1/7 1/5 1/4 1. This refers, of course, to the rectilinear, or translational, speed of the center.

I showed earlier that mechanically this is how it should be. The speed of atoms known to us varies from about a few meters to several miles per second - depending on their massiveness and temperature. And since there are particles of various masses - from zero (limit) to a certain value, then the speeds of the centers are also diverse. We mean translational, or rectilinear, speed. The rotational one, which more and more chains matter to the place, that is, the curvilinear speed of the true elements of matter, can be one and the same.

When matter is decomposed into the smallest masses, huge rectilinear speeds. Here energy prevails, not mass. The deeper the decomposition, the more striking this predominance. In the limit, such matter represents one energy. The more massive its particles, the more noticeable the materiality, that is, the mass, and the more imperceptible the energy. rectilinear motion, although the intraatomic one remains just as huge. That is why, in view of the imperfection of the instruments of measurement, the modern scientist has divided the essence of the universe into mass and energy. In a mathematical sense, this is not true. No matter how great the energy, but without mass it is unthinkable. Energy is the same mass and can again give it, that is, the substance known to us, if a combination (synthesis) of elements occurs.

The more complex the atom, that is, the more massive it is, the weaker its rectilinear motion, the less elasticity, therefore, because it depends on the magnitude of the translational motion. And the lower the elasticity, the more attraction prevails and, therefore, the greater the density of a substance that consists of atoms or molecules.

The properties of matter described by us (attraction of different kinds, connection, decomposition and dependence of the elasticity of matter on the translational speed and complexity of particles) explain the mechanical side of the universe, its periodicity, that is, the continuous extinction and rebirth of suns and planetary systems. Thanks to this, in general, the state of the universe never changes, it never dies, does not go out, but eternally blooms with suns, planets and life. She is eternally young or courageous - in the full bloom of her powers. It is immortal not only in relation to the constancy of matter and forces, but also in relation to its always stormy life - organic and inorganic.

Now we can explain the continual arising and continual fading of suns, that is, the constancy of mechanical life, or the eternal effervescent activity of the universe (see my writings: "Monism", "The Formation of Solar Systems", "Love of [one's] self" and others).

From the book Philosophical Dictionary of Mind, Matter, Morality [fragments] by Russell Bertrand

58. Physical laws. Laws imprinted in differential equations are likely to be accurate, but we cannot know about it. Everything we can know empirically is approximate and subject to exceptions; about the exact laws that are accepted in physics,

From the book NOTHING ORDINARY author Millman Dan

PHYSICAL EXERCISE: THE EXPERIENCE OF MOVEMENT Nutrition has a very great importance for health, but the importance exercise even higher. Paavo Airola, a recognized authority who devoted his life to nutrition and dietary research, once said that

From the book Dialectic of Myth author Losev Alexey Fyodorovich

Mindful exercise Unlike most sports, sports games and athletics, conscious exercise is a balanced complex movements specially designed for general wellness of the body, mind and senses. Conscious

the author Lem Stanislav

d) matter as a principle of reality, physical theories; d) Lately the materialists have simply resorted to forgery. They declared matter to be nothing more than 5) the principle of reality, and materialism simply the doctrine of the objectivity of things and the world. But here it remains only to dissolve

From the book Algorithms of the Mind author Amosov Nikolay Mikhailovich

(h) Hypotheses A paradoxical situation has been created. Trying to look into the future of civilization, we were looking for support and unexpectedly received help from astrophysics, which, using statistical methods, investigates the frequency of the appearance of intelligent life in the Cosmos ... but then the conclusions of these

From the book Shadows of the Mind [In Search of the Science of Consciousness] author Penrose Roger

On the implementation of the hypothesis Our hypothesis assumes the structure of the "receptor field" in the form of a network of elements with an unlimited number of connections. Approximately such a structure takes place in the cerebral cortex. Play it technical means not yet presented

From the book The Art of Thinking Right author Ivin Alexander Arkhipovich

4.1. Mind and physical laws We all (both in body and mind) belong to a universe that unquestioningly obeys - and with extremely high accuracy - incredibly intricate and universally applicable mathematical laws. Within the framework of modern scientific

From the book Sum of Technology the author Lem Stanislav

From the book Philosophy in a systematic presentation (collection) author Team of authors

FROM HYPOTHESIS TO THEORY "The approval of a law is possible only with the help of deriving consequences from it, without which it is impossible and unexpected, and justifying those consequences in experimental verification." D. I. Mendeleev “No logical path leads from observations to basic principles

From the book The Secret Meaning of Life. Volume 3 author Livraga Jorge Angel

Hypotheses A paradoxical situation was CREATED. Trying to look into the future of civilization, we were looking for support and unexpectedly received help from astrophysics, which, using statistical methods, investigates the frequency of the appearance of intelligent life in the Cosmos ... but then the conclusions of these studies

From the book Process Mind. A Guide to Connecting with the Mind of God author Mindell Arnold

III. Physical sciences In the hierarchy of sciences, mechanics appears next to kinematics; the question arises: what concept was decisive here? Exploring the composition of science in this direction, we find two main concepts: force and mass, around which mechanics has historically developed.

From the book Logic: a textbook for law schools author Kirillov Vyacheslav Ivanovich

From the author's book

Four physical forces In today's physics, four types of forces or force fields are known. Let's look at them one by one and try to guess which types psychological experiences, analogies and metaphors could be associated with these physical fields. It will help

From the author's book

§ 1. THE CONCEPT OF HYPOTHESIS Reliable knowledge in scientific or practical activity is preceded by rational understanding and evaluation of the factual material delivered by observation. This mental activity is accompanied by the construction of various kinds of guesses and

From the author's book

§ 3. CONSTRUCTION OF A HYPOTHESIS The construction of a hypothesis, like versions in a forensic investigation, consists of three successive stages: 1) analysis of individual facts and relationships between them; 2) synthesis of facts, their generalization; 3) making an assumption. Consider these steps using an example

From the author's book

§ 4. VERIFICATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS A hypothesis, or version, is tested in two stages: 1) deductive derivation of the consequences arising from the hypothesis, 2) comparison of the consequences with facts.1. Deductive inference. Knowing the features of the hypothesis H, and also taking into account the specific conditions of its

A hypothesis is an argument about a particular phenomenon, which is based on the subjective view of a person who directs his actions in some established direction. If the result is still unknown to a person, then a generalized assumption is created, and checking it allows you to adjust the general direction of the work. This is the scientific concept of a hypothesis. Is it possible to simplify the meaning of this concept?

Explanation in "non-scientific" language

A hypothesis is the ability to predict, predict the results of work, and this is the most important component of virtually everyone. scientific discovery. It helps to calculate future errors and misses and reduce their number significantly. At the same time, a hypothesis born directly during the work can be proved in a partial way. With a known result, the assumption makes no sense, and then hypotheses are not put forward. Here is a simple definition of the concept of a hypothesis. Now we can talk about how it is built, and discuss its most interesting types.

How is a hypothesis born?

Creating an argument in the human head is not an easy thought process. The researcher must be able to create and update the acquired knowledge, and he must also be distinguished by the following qualities:

problematic vision. It's the ability to show the way scientific development, establish its main trends and link disparate tasks together. Adds a problematic vision with the skills and knowledge already acquired, the intuition and abilities of a person in research.
Alternative character. This trait allows a person to draw the most interesting conclusions, to find something completely new in known facts.
Intuition. This term denotes an unconscious process and is not based on logical reasoning.

What is the essence of the hypothesis?

The hypothesis reflects the objective reality. In this it is similar to different forms of thinking, but it also differs from them. The main specificity of the hypothesis is that it displays the facts in the material world in a hypothetical way, it does not assert categorically and reliably. Because a hypothesis is an assumption.

Everyone knows that when establishing a concept through the nearest genus and difference, it will also be necessary to indicate features. The closest genus for a hypothesis in the form of any result of activity is the concept of “assumption”. What is the difference between a hypothesis and conjecture, fantasy, prediction, guessing? The most shocking hypotheses are not based on speculation alone, they all have certain signs. To answer this question, we need to select essential features.

Signs of a hypothesis

If we talk about this concept, then it is worth establishing it characteristics.

A hypothesis is a special form of development of scientific knowledge. It is hypotheses that allow science to move from individual facts to a specific phenomenon, generalization of knowledge and knowledge of the laws of development of a particular phenomenon.
A hypothesis is based on making assumptions, which is associated with a theoretical explanation of certain phenomena. This concept acts as a separate judgment or a whole line of interrelated judgments, natural phenomena. Judgments are always problematic for researchers, because this concept refers to probabilistic theoretical knowledge. It happens that hypotheses are put forward on the basis of deduction. An example is the shocking hypothesis of K. A. Timiryazev about photosynthesis. It was confirmed, but initially it all started from assumptions in the law of conservation of energy.
A hypothesis is a reasonable assumption that is based on some specific facts. Therefore, a hypothesis cannot be called a chaotic and subconscious process, it is a completely logically harmonious and regular mechanism that allows a person to expand his knowledge to obtain new information - to cognize objective reality. Again, we can recall the shocking hypothesis of N. Copernicus about the new heliocentric system, which revealed the idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He outlined all his ideas in the work "On the rotation celestial spheres”, all guesses were based on a real factual base and the inconsistency of the then-current geocentric concept was shown.

These distinctive features, taken together, will make it possible to distinguish a hypothesis from other types of assumptions, as well as to establish its essence. As you can see, a hypothesis is a probabilistic assumption about the causes of a particular phenomenon, the reliability of which cannot now be verified and proven, but this assumption allows us to explain some of the causes of the phenomenon.

It is important to remember that the term "hypothesis" is always used in a double sense. A hypothesis is an assumption that explains some phenomenon. They also speak of a hypothesis as a method of thinking that puts forward some kind of assumption, and then builds the development and proof of this fact.

Hypothesis is often built in the form of an assumption about the cause of past phenomena. An example is our knowledge of the formation of the solar system, the earth's core, the birth of the earth, and so on.

When does a hypothesis cease to exist?

This is possible only in a couple of cases:

The hypothesis receives confirmation and turns into an already reliable fact - it becomes part of a general theory.
The hypothesis is refuted and becomes only false knowledge.

This can happen during hypothesis testing, when the accumulated knowledge is sufficient to establish the truth.

What is included in the structure of a hypothesis?

A hypothesis is built from the following elements:

base - accumulation different facts, statements (substantiated or not);
form - the accumulation of various inferences, which will lead from the foundation of a hypothesis to an assumption;
assumption - conclusions from the facts, statements that describe and justify the hypothesis.

It is worth noting that the hypotheses are always the same in logical structure, but they differ in content and functions.

What can be said about the concept of hypothesis and types?

In the process of evolution of knowledge, hypotheses begin to differ in cognitive qualities, as well as in the object of study. Let's take a closer look at each of these types.

By function in cognitive process There are descriptive and explanatory hypotheses:

A descriptive hypothesis is a statement that refers to the properties inherent in the object under study. Usually, the assumption allows you to answer the questions “What is this or that object?” or “What properties does the object have?”. This type of hypothesis can be put forward in order to reveal the composition or structure of an object, reveal its mechanism of action or features of its activity, and determine functional features. Among descriptive hypotheses, there are existential hypotheses that speak of the existence of some object.
An explanatory hypothesis is a statement based on the reasons for the appearance of an object. Such hypotheses allow us to explain why a certain event occurred or what are the reasons for the appearance of an object.

History shows that with the development of knowledge, more and more existential hypotheses appear that tell about the existence of a particular object. Next, descriptive hypotheses appear that tell about the properties of those objects, and in the end, explanatory hypotheses are born that reveal the mechanism and reasons for the appearance of the object. As you can see, there is a gradual complication of the hypothesis in the process of learning something new.

What hypotheses are there for the object of study? Distinguish between public and private.

General hypotheses help substantiate assumptions about regular relationships and empirical regulators. They play the role of a kind of scaffolding in the development scientific knowledge. Once hypotheses are proven, they become scientific theories and contribute to science.
A private hypothesis is an assumption with justification about the origin and quality of facts, events or phenomena. If there was a single circumstance that caused the appearance of other facts, then knowledge takes the form of hypotheses.
There is also such a type of hypothesis as a working one. This is an assumption put forward at the beginning of the study, which is a conditional assumption and allows you to combine facts and observations into a single whole and give them an initial explanation. The main specificity of the working hypothesis is that it is accepted conditionally or temporarily. It is extremely important for the researcher to systematize the acquired knowledge given at the beginning of the study. After they need to be processed and outline a further route. This is exactly what a working hypothesis is for.

What is a version?

concept scientific hypothesis already found out, but there is another such unusual term - version. What it is? Whether political, historical or sociological research, as well as in judicial and investigative practice, often when explaining certain facts or their combination, a number of hypotheses are put forward that can explain the facts in different ways. These hypotheses are called versions.

Versions are public and private.

The general version is an assumption that tells about the crime as a whole in the form of a single system of certain circumstances and actions. This version answers not one, but whole line questions.
A private version is an assumption that explains the individual circumstances of a crime. One common version is built from private versions.

What are the requirements for a hypothesis?

The very concept of a hypothesis in the rules of law must meet certain requirements:

it cannot have multiple theses;
the judgment must be framed clearly, logically;
the argument should not include judgments or concepts of an ambiguous nature that cannot yet be clarified by the researcher;
judgment must include a method of solving the problem in order to become part of the study;
when presenting an assumption, it is forbidden to use value judgments, because the hypothesis must be confirmed by facts, after which it will be tested and applied to a wide range;
the hypothesis must correspond to a given topic, subject of research, tasks; all assumptions that are unnaturally tied to the topic are eliminated;
a hypothesis cannot contradict existing theories, but there are exceptions.

How is a hypothesis developed?

Human hypotheses are a thought process. Of course, it is difficult to imagine a general and unified process of constructing a hypothesis: all due to the fact that the conditions for developing an assumption depend on practical activities and on the specifics of a particular problem. However, it is still possible to single out the general boundaries of the stages of the thought process that lead to the emergence of a hypothesis. It:

putting forward a hypothesis;
development;
examination.

Now we need to consider each stage of the emergence of the hypothesis.

Hypothesis

To put forward a hypothesis, you will need to have some facts related to a certain phenomenon, and they must justify the likelihood of the assumption, explain the unknown. Therefore, at first there is a collection of materials, knowledge and facts related to a certain phenomenon, which will be further explained.

Based on the materials, an assumption is made about what the given phenomenon is, or, in other words, a hypothesis is formulated in a narrow sense. Assumption in this case represents a certain judgment that is expressed as a result of processing the collected facts. The facts on which the hypothesis is made can be logically comprehended. This is how the main content of the hypothesis appears. The assumption should answer questions about the essence, the causes of the phenomenon, and so on.

Development and validation

After the hypothesis is put forward, its development begins. If we assume the proposed assumption to be true, then a number of definite consequences should appear. At the same time, logical consequences cannot be identified with the conclusions of the causal chain. Logical consequences are thoughts that explain not only the circumstances of the phenomenon, but also the causes of its occurrence, and so on. Comparison of the facts from the hypothesis with the already established data allows you to confirm or disprove the hypothesis.

This is possible only as a result of testing the hypothesis in practice. A hypothesis is always generated by practice, and only practice can decide whether a hypothesis is true or false. Testing in practice allows you to transform the hypothesis into reliable knowledge about the process (false or true). Therefore, it is not worthwhile to reduce the truth of a hypothesis to a definite and single logical action; when checking in practice, different methods and methods of proof or refutation are used.

Confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis

The work hypothesis is used frequently in the scientific world. This method allows you to confirm or refute certain facts in legal or economic practice through perception. Examples include the discovery of the planet Neptune, the discovery of clean water in Lake Baikal, the establishment of islands in Arctic Ocean and so on. All this was once hypotheses, and now - scientifically established facts. The problem is that in some cases it is difficult or impossible to act in practice, and it is not possible to test all assumptions.

For example, now there is a shocking hypothesis that the modern Russian language is more muffled than Old Russian, but the problem is that now it is impossible to hear oral Old Russian speech. It is impossible to check in practice whether the Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible was tonsured a monk or not.

In cases where prognostic hypotheses are put forward, it is inappropriate to expect their immediate and direct confirmation in practice. Therefore, in the scientific world they use such a logical proof or refutation of hypotheses. Logical proof or refutation proceeds in an indirect way, because phenomena from the past or present time are known, which are inaccessible to sensory perception.

The main ways of logical proof of a hypothesis or its refutation:

inductive way. A more complete confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis and the derivation of certain consequences from it thanks to arguments that include laws and facts.
deductive way. Derivation or refutation of a hypothesis from a number of others, more general, but already proven.
The inclusion of a hypothesis in a system of scientific knowledge, where it is consistent with other facts.

Logical proof or refutation can proceed in direct or indirect form evidence or refutation.

The important role of the hypothesis

Having revealed the problem of the essence, structure of the hypothesis, it is also worth noting its important role in practical and theoretical activities. Hypothesis is a necessary form of development scientific knowledge, without it it is impossible to understand something new. It plays an important role in the scientific world, serves as a foundation for the formation of virtually every scientific theory. All significant discoveries in science arose far from ready-made; these were the most shocking hypotheses, which sometimes they did not even want to consider.

Everything always starts small. All of physics has been built on countless shocking hypotheses that have been confirmed or refuted through scientific practice. Therefore, it is worth mentioning some interesting ideas.

Some particles move from the future to the past. Physicists have their own set of rules and prohibitions, which are considered to be canon, but with the advent of tachyons, it would seem that all the norms were shaken. Tachyon is a particle that can violate all the accepted laws of physics at once: its mass is imaginary, and it moves faster than the speed of light. A theory has been put forward that tachyons can move backwards in time. Introduced particle theorist Gerald Feinberg in 1967 and announced that tachyons are new class particles. The scientist claimed that this is actually a generalization of antimatter. Feinberg had a lot of like-minded people, and the idea took root for a long time, however, refutations nevertheless appeared. Tachyons have not completely left physics, but still no one has been able to detect them either in space or in accelerators. If the hypothesis were correct, people would be able to communicate with their ancestors.
A drop of water polymer could destroy the oceans. This one of the most shocking hypotheses suggests that water can be transformed into a polymer - this is a component in which individual molecules become links in a larger chain. In this case, the properties of water must change. The hypothesis was put forward by the chemist Nikolai Fedyakin after an experiment with water vapor. The hypothesis for a long time frightened scientists, because it was assumed that one drop of a water polymer could turn all the planet's water into a polymer. However, the refutation of the most shocking hypothesis was not long in coming. The experiment of the scientist was repeated, there was no evidence of the theory.

There were a lot of such most shocking hypotheses at one time, but many of them were not confirmed after a series of scientific experiments, but they were not forgotten. Fantasy and scientific justification- these are the two main components for every scientist.