What is a hypothesis? Definition and concept. Hypothesis: definition of the concept and types Give the definition of the term hypothesis in physics

A hypothesis is a natural form of development of knowledge, which is a reasonable assumption put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.

characteristic features of the hypothesis:

(1) A hypothesis is a universal and necessary form of knowledge development for any cognitive process.

(2) Constructing a hypothesis is always accompanied by putting forward assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under study, which is the logical core of the hypothesis and is formulated in the form of a separate judgment or a system of interrelated judgments.

(3) The assumption that arises when constructing a hypothesis is born as a result analysis of factual material, based on a synthesis of numerous observations. An important role in the emergence of a fruitful hypothesis is played by the intuition, creativity and imagination of the researcher.

Types of hypotheses

In the process of knowledge development, hypotheses differ in their cognitive functions and the object of study.

1. By functions in cognitive process, hypotheses are distinguished: (1) descriptive And (2)explanatory.

(1)Descriptive hypothesis - this is an assumption about the inherent properties of the object under study. It usually answers the question:

Descriptive hypotheses can be put forward to identify composition or structures object, disclosure mechanism or procedural features of its activities, definitions functional characteristics of the object.

(2)An explanatory hypothesis is an assumption about the reasons for the emergence of the object of research.

2. Based on the object of study, hypotheses are distinguished: general and private.

(1) O A general hypothesis is an educated guess about natural connections and empirical regularities.

(2) A particular hypothesis is an educated guess about the origin and properties of individual facts, specific events and phenomena. If a single circumstance served as the cause of the emergence of other facts and if it is not accessible to direct perception, then its knowledge takes the form of a hypothesis about the existence or properties of this circumstance.

Along with the terms “general” and “particular hypothesis” the term is used in science "working hypothesis".

A working hypothesis is an assumption put forward at the first stages of the study, which serves as a conditional assumption that allows us to group the results of observations and give them an initial explanation.

§ 4. Methods of proving hypotheses

There are three main ways: deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis; direct detection of hypothesized objects.

(1)Direct detection of the desired objects. The most convincing way to turn an assumption into reliable knowledge is direct detection at the expected time or in the expected place of the desired objects or direct perception of the assumed properties.

(2)Logical proof of versions. Versions that explain the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical justification.

Logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can take the form indirect or direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and eliminating all false versions, on the basis of which the reliability of the only remaining assumption is asserted.

The conclusion proceeds in the form of a denying-affirming mode of separation-categorical inference.

Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving from the assumption various consequences that follow only from this hypothesis and confirming them with newly discovered facts.

In the premises of a simple categorical syllogism, the middle term can take the place of subject or predicate. Depending on this, there are four types of syllogism, which are called figures (Fig. 52).

Rice. 52

In the first figure the middle term takes the place of the subject in the major and the place of the predicate in the minor premises.

In second figure- place of the predicate in both premises. IN third figure- the place of the subject in both premises. IN fourth figure- the place of the predicate in the major and the place of the subject in the minor premise.

These figures exhaust all possible combinations of terms. The figures of a syllogism are its varieties, differing in the position of the middle term in the premises.

The premises of a syllogism can be judgments of different quality and quantity: general affirmative (A), general negative (E), particular affirmative (I) and particular negative (O).

Varieties of syllogism that differ in the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the premises are called modes of simple categorical syllogism.

For example, the major and minor premises are generally affirmative judgments (AA), the major premise is a generally affirmative, the minor is a general negative judgment (AE), etc. Since each premise can be any of four propositions, the number of possible combinations of premises in each figure is 2 4, i.e. 16:

AA EA IA OA AE (EE) IE(OE)AIEI(II) (01) AO (EO) (10) (00) Obviously, in the four figures the number of combinations is 64. However, not all modes are consistent with the general rules of the syllogism. For example, modes enclosed in brackets contradict the 1st and 3rd rules of premises,

modeI.A. does not pass through the first and second figures, since it contradicts the 2nd rule of terms, etc. Therefore, by selecting only those modes that are consistent with the general rules of the syllogism, we obtain 19 modes, which are called correct. They are usually written down along with the conclusion:

1st figure: AAA, EAE, All, EY

2nd figure: EAE, AEE, EY, AOO

3rd figure: AAI, IAI, All, EAO, OAO, EY

4th figure: AAI, AEE, IAI, EAO, EY

Special rules and cognitive significance of syllogism figures

Each figure has its own special rules, which are derived from the general ones.

Rules for the 1st figure:

1. The major premise is a general proposition.

2. The minor premise is an affirmative proposition.

Let us first prove the 2nd rule. If the minor premise is a negative proposition, then according to the 2nd rule of premises the conclusion will also be negative, in which P is distributed. But then it will be distributed in the larger premise, which must also be a negative judgment (in an affirmative judgment P is not distributed), and this contradicts the 1st rule of premises. If the major premise is an affirmative proposition, then P will not be distributed. But then it will not be distributed in conclusion (according to the 3rd rule of terms). A conclusion with undistributed P can only be an affirmative judgment, since in a negative judgment P is distributed. This means that the minor premise is an affirmative judgment, since otherwise the conclusion will be negative.

Now let's prove the 1st rule. Since the middle term in this figure takes the place of the subject in the greater and the place of the predicate in the minor premise, then, according to the 2nd rule of terms, it must be distributed in at least one of the premises. But the minor premise is an affirmative proposition. This means that the middle term is not distributed in it. But in this case it must be distributed in a larger premise, and for this it must be a general judgment (in a particular premise the subject is not distributed).

Let us exclude combinations of premises IA, OA, IE, which contradict the 1st rule of the figure, and combinations AE and AO, which contradict the 2nd rule. There remain four modes AAA, EAE, All, EA, which are correct. These modes show that the 1st figure gives any conclusions: generally affirmative, generally negative, particular affirmative and particular negative, which determines its cognitive significance and wide application in reasoning.

The 1st figure is the most typical form of deductive reasoning. From a general position, which often expresses a law of science, a legal norm, a conclusion is drawn about a separate fact, a single case, a specific person. This figure is widely used in judicial practice. Legal assessment (qualification) of legal phenomena, application of the rule of law to an individual case, sentencing for a crime committed by a specific person, and other judicial decisions take the logical form of the 1st figure of the syllogism.

For example:

All persons deprived of their liberty (M) have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (P) H. (S) deprived of their liberty (M)

H.(S) has the right to be treated humanely and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (R)

Rules for the 2nd figure:

1. The major premise is a general proposition.

2. One of the premises is a negative judgment.

The second rule of the figure is derived from the 2nd rule of terms (the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises). But since the middle term takes the place of a predicate in both premises, one of them must be a negative proposition, i.e. a proposition with a distributed predicate.

If one of the premises is a negative proposition, then the conclusion must be negative (a proposition with a distributed predicate). But in this case, the predicate of the conclusion (the larger term) must be distributed in the larger premise, where it takes the place of the subject of the judgment. Such a premise must be a general judgment in which the subject is distributed. This means that the larger premise must be a general proposition.

The rules of the 2nd figure exclude combinations of premises AA, IA, OA, IE, AI, leaving the modes EAE, AEE, EA, AOO, which show that this figure gives only negative conclusions.

The 2nd figure is used when it is necessary to show that a separate case (a specific person, fact, phenomenon) cannot be subsumed under a general position. This case is excluded from the number of subjects spoken of in the major premise. In judicial practice, the 2nd figure is used to conclude that there is no corpus delicti in this particular case, to refute provisions that contradict what is stated in the premise expressing the general position.

For example:

An instigator (P) is a person who incites another person to commit a crime (M) H. (S) is not recognized as a person who induces another person to commit a crime (M)

H.(S) is not an instigator (P)

Rules for the 3rd figure:

1. The minor premise is an affirmative proposition.

2. Conclusion - private judgment.

The 1st rule is proven in the same way as the 2nd rule of the 1st figure. But if the minor premise is an affirmative proposition, then its predicate (the minor term of the syllogism) is not distributed. A term not distributed in the premise cannot be distributed in the conclusion. This means that the conclusion must be a private judgment.

Giving only partial conclusions, the 3rd figure is most often used to establish partial compatibility of features related to one subject. For example:

Inspection of the scene of the incident (M) has one of its tasks

detection of traces of a crime (P)

Inspection of the crime scene (M) - investigative action (S)

Some investigative actions (S) have one of their tasks to detect traces of a crime (P)

In the practice of reasoning, the 3rd figure is used relatively rarely.

4th figure syllogism also has its own rules and modes. However, deriving a conclusion from the premises based on this figure is not typical for the natural process of reasoning. For example:

Taking a hostage (P) is a crime against public safety (M)

Crime against public safety (M) - a socially dangerous act provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (S)

Some socially dangerous acts provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (S) are hostage-taking (P)

This line of reasoning seems to be somewhat artificial; in practice, conclusions in such cases are usually drawn from the first figure:

Crimes against public safety (M) - socially dangerous acts provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (R)

Hostage taking (S) is a crime against public safety (M) _____

Hostage taking (S) is a socially dangerous act provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (P)

Since the course of reasoning based on the 4th figure is not typical for the thinking process, and the cognitive value of the conclusion is small, we do not consider the rules and modes of this figure.

The rules of syllogism are formulated for syllogistic conclusions that do not include distinguishing judgments as premises. If there are such premises, then such syllogisms do not obey some general rules, as well as special rules for figures.

Let's look at the most common cases.

hypothesis) - a judgment put forward to test or evaluate a generalization about a phenomenon. See also Experimental hypothesis; Null hypothesis; Hypothetical-deductive explanation and method.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HYPOTHESIS

Greek - basis, assumption) - a form of organization of scientific knowledge that ensures movement towards new knowledge, going beyond the framework of available (existing) knowledge and facilitating (in some cases) the implementation of a new idea (a conceptual scheme as an explication of an idea, as a “general G.” theory hypothesis ). Functionally, it is formalized as a preliminary explanation of a certain phenomenon or group of phenomena. It is built on the basis of the assumption of the implicit existence of a certain order relationship, realized as a sequence of alternation of phenomena that allows (subject to the norms and rules of procedure) to draw conclusions (conclusions, assumptions) about the structure of objects, the nature and closeness (materiality) of the recorded connections of objects, features, parameters etc., the determination of some phenomena by others. Logically formulated according to the scheme of conditionally categorical inference, in which it is necessary to confirm or refute a certain premise. In this sense, G. looks like a proposition that follows with logical necessity from existing knowledge, but goes beyond its limits (boundaries), and is a reformulation of a discovered and solvable problem.

Procedurally, G. (as a transition from the unknown, problematic to the known, hypothetically assumed) is constructed as an algorithm for realizing a research goal with possible access to a practical solution. Thus, G. predetermines the internal logic of the development of knowledge. In most cases, this is the logic of substantiating a position, sometimes it is the logic of discovery (the assumption of the existence of a certain phenomenon). G. is a form of normative-procedural organization of knowledge that cannot be directly assessed from the point of view of its truth or falsity. It sets a certain field of uncertainty. The removal of this uncertainty occurs during the theoretical (logical) justification (proof) of G. and (or) its experimental confirmation or refutation, i.e. empirical justification. Assumptions formalized as G. are always probable (and in this regard, to one degree or another, uncertain); procedures for substantiating (verifying) initial research G. there are always steps to reduce this uncertainty, in the limit - to remove it altogether, which would make it possible to change the status of probabilistic knowledge to the status of reliable (theoretical) knowledge, and thereby overcome the normative and procedural limitations of hypothetical knowledge - i.e. “liquidate” G. as a form of knowledge in this particular study and/or theory. However, in modern scientific methodology, this attitude is increasingly viewed as fundamentally completely unrealizable in any scientific theory, which itself is interpreted as a set (structure and organization) of hypothetical constructs, ideally connected by relations of deducibility. In this context, in scientific knowledge (theory, program) there is a distinction between an invariant core and its peripheral “protective belt”, open to the outside, dependent on newly emerging data and in need of constant reformulation of its provisions, their constant re-justification. Thus, the “periphery” is fundamentally framed as problematic-hypothetical knowledge, the boundary of which with the “core” is always quite conditional and conventional. At the same time, the emphasis on substantiating the corresponding hypothetical positions within the theory is increasingly being replaced by an emphasis on discrediting competing theories, and the theories themselves are beginning to be understood as patterns taken on faith (see), as possible points of view on certain subject areas, i.e. scientific knowledge itself begins to be interpreted as fundamentally hypothetical (containing an irremovable moment of uncertainty, resolved conventionally and/or procedurally).

“Hypothetization” of knowledge leads to the actualization of its activity-technological aspects through work with its content. Thus, it can be argued (with a certain degree of convention) that scientific knowledge deals not with real events, but with the analysis of the objective possibilities of certain events. It is capable of removing (overcoming) its own problematic nature, but not its own probability, which inevitably leads to its new problematization. The turning point to this approach can be considered the transfer of emphasis from verification procedures to procedures for falsifying knowledge, from inference schemes aimed at confirming a statement to inference schemes aimed at refuting a statement. Confirmation of a corollary from a statement only helps to increase the plausibility of a judgment, while denying a consequence is capable of casting doubt on the very foundation of a hypothesis. Refutation has greater heuristic potential than confirmation, which is always problematic - any scientific position, until it is refuted, can be considered as a hypothesis (it is always a “questioning”, formulated according to certain rules and norms in accordance with one or another ideal of knowledge and a procedure “built” as adequate to the research situation).

It is necessary to distinguish between G.-foundations and G.-consequences derived from them, which, in fact, are subject to justification procedures. At the same time, non-confirmation of one of the consequences is not a sufficient condition for refuting the G-foundation. Although it is called into question, we are talking, rather, about problematizing the procedure for constructing a G. system with parallel re-explication of the content (up to its reformulation and reinterpretation) and verification of the formal correctness of the organization of the procedure itself. (To one degree or another, it is true that working with knowledge that is hypothetical in status is working with knowledge in a procedural mode.) The theoretical justification of a hypothesis involves testing it for consistency, establishing its fundamental verifiability, identifying its applicability to the class of phenomena being studied, and studying its deducibility from more general theoretical provisions, an assessment of its fit into the theory through a possible restructuring of the latter. The empirical substantiation of hypothesis involves either observation of the phenomena described by geography (which is rarely possible), or work to correlate the consequences of geography with the available and detectable data of experience. Work with procedures for substantiating geographies has developed in scientific practice an orientation towards producing the largest possible number of interconnected groups, on the one hand, and towards establishing the largest possible number of referents (empirical indicators) for each group, on the other. In the methodology of science, a number of qualitative parameters have been developed that a correctly formulated group must satisfy. Among them are the following parameters: generality (groups covering a larger number of objects are more preferable); complexity (determining the optimum of factors included in the structure of a geometric model); specifiability (establishing distinguishable values ​​for each of the factors included in the structure of G.); determinism (the factor is more deterministic, the greater the number of observations taken into account); falsifiability and verifiability (establishing the limits of uncertainty of G.); communicativeness (substantive and procedural consistency of knowledge within knowledge with established - already substantiated - provisions); predictability (based on available data and knowledge); reproducibility and stability (measures of objectivity and reliability of G.). Particularly specified are the procedural requirements for G. - its fundamental feasibility at a given level of knowledge and by these means, the avoidance of value judgments in it, the absence of uninterpreted concepts in it, and the minimization of various restrictions and assumptions in it. Procedures are specified for various classes (types) of geology: basic and non-basic (focused on different research tasks), primary and secondary (arising on the basis or instead of the first), and most importantly - structural (focused on identifying the structures, properties, nature of connections of an object) , functional (focused on determining the degree of closeness of connections and interactions within a certain integrity), explanatory (cause-and-effect). In a number of typologies, functional groups are also classified as explanatory; in other typologies they are combined with structural ones into a type (class) of descriptive systems (in both typologies, structural systems are classified as descriptive). See also: Hypothetico-deductive method, Science, Theory.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Much knowledge is the original hypotheses that were put forward by scientists to confirm or test them. If we consider the concept of a hypothesis, we can understand that it is an assumption or guess of a person who is considering a specific phenomenon or characteristic of an object. A hypothesis is a statement that a person makes about an unstudied phenomenon. Since anything can be studied, there are several types of hypotheses.

When a person does not know something, but constantly encounters a certain phenomenon or object, he wants to study it. This is quite normal for the human mind, which feels calm only when the phenomena around it are clear to it and have logical proof.

To begin to study something, a person must notice something that is not clear to him, and then begin to make assumptions about why this or that phenomenon happens, how it develops, how it is eliminated, what it is aimed at, etc. A person first puts forward his thoughts on account of what has not yet been studied. After which the process of proving or refuting the proposed idea occurs. Now a person must confirm that his opinion turned out to be correct and always works, or refute it, find special conditions for the occurrence of this or that phenomenon, its variability, etc.

A hypothesis is the first step on the path to knowledge. Even if a hypothesis is refuted, it still remains in the history of science, since there were certain prerequisites for its emergence. It is these premises that can then become evidence for another hypothesis that arises in a specific area.

The online magazine site refers to the wisdom of scientists: no knowledge can be formed without a hypothesis, and not every hypothesis is absolutely proven. In other words, a person needs to doubt even the knowledge that he possesses, since in the world one can find a refutation of an already proven phenomenon.

Even exact sciences do not fully prove certain phenomena. Undoubtedly, the knowledge that children acquire in schools has its own evidence. But one should not believe in their exclusive truth and immutability. Any knowledge can be questioned and refuted by other evidence.

Do not trust knowledge unconditionally. Doubt the knowledge you receive from books, magazines, and scientific literature. Moreover, test the knowledge you receive in action. The easiest example of how people are “stuffed” with false knowledge are history textbooks of your country and other countries. The longer you live, the more new information you receive and evidence that what you previously knew from history in your school years is not true.

Use exactly the same approach with other knowledge. For example, all women have more than once encountered the fact that modern creams, shampoos and ointments for body and hair care do not give the effect that is written on the jars. There are many folk remedies, which supposedly should also help maintain their youth and beauty. But they are often ineffective. Accordingly, they give you false information, that is, they deceive you.

Even knowledge that is scientific should be treated with doubt and caution. Undoubtedly, it is good to know all the techniques of manipulation when communicating with other people. Some of them really work. But we should not forget that there are people who do not give in to manipulation or see manipulation. By “resistance” to manipulation we mean that in fact these manipulations do not work at all. For example, it is believed that you should not sit opposite your interlocutor during communication, as this creates a position of confrontation. But if you interview many people, it turns out that they never felt that they were being attacked, just because they sat opposite them.

Knowledge is useful and important to all people. But if you don’t want to become a puppet in the hands of people who benefit from programming you to do something, doubt the information you receive. They tell you something, take it into account, but check the knowledge you have acquired. After all, much of what people are told is untrue, designed to distract people, misdirect them, intimidate them, or cause certain reactions that are actually unwarranted. Doubt what you know until you test your knowledge in practice. Check to understand what knowledge is correct and what is false.

What is a hypothesis?

But let’s return to where all knowledge begins – to the hypothesis. Scientists first put forward a hypothesis in order to later make it knowledge or a disproved hypothesis. What it is? A hypothesis is a statement in the form of a guess or assumption that requires explanation. It arises in any area of ​​human life where a person does not yet have knowledge and cannot explain specific phenomena. A hypothesis is put forward to address an object, phenomenon or specific characteristic, cause of occurrence or elimination, which then requires evidence and study.

At first, a hypothesis is not true or false. It is necessary to conduct experiments, look at the phenomenon in natural conditions, trace all the changes, find all the strong evidence or refutations in order to come to the conclusion that the hypothesis turns into true knowledge or a false assumption.

If a hypothesis has been refuted, it is not forgotten, but remains in the history of the study of a particular phenomenon. The reason for this approach is that a false hypothesis is based on real and proven factors, it just needs to be changed, adjusted, supplemented so that it becomes true knowledge. Hypotheses don’t just arise in a person’s head, so refuted knowledge requires revision, adjustment and bringing it to the truth.

The process is quite simple:

1. First, an idea appears in a person’s head – a hypothesis. He assumes or explains in his own way a certain phenomenon.
2. Then research and experiments are carried out to prove or disprove the hypothesis.
3. Conclusions are drawn based on the results obtained.

Even if a hypothesis has been refuted, it still becomes an aid to putting forward a new hypothesis. It is simply corrected, supplemented, modified.

If a hypothesis has been proven, it turns into knowledge. However, not every knowledge is absolute. It is possible to find refutations that cast doubt on true knowledge. Therefore, even knowledge may turn out to be false in some (not all) situations.

The hypothesis could be:

1. Public or private.
2. Superficial or deep.
3. Refer to specific characteristics or consider the subject as a whole.
4. Belong to one field of knowledge or combine several sciences.

A hypothesis is scientific and theoretical knowledge that requires proof. A hypothesis is put forward by a scientist who encounters certain phenomena or objects, behind which he notices specific characteristics that do not yet have an explanation. Where a person has questions, hypotheses appear. Only if scientists have hypotheses as knowledge that needs to be proven or disproved through research and experimentation, then ordinary people ideas and thoughts that arose in the head at the individual level are often perceived by a person as true knowledge, insight, knowledge of the true, so he does not even refute his idea, considering it correct in all cases.

Knowledge is first hypothetical, that is, just an assumption that explains causes, connections, characteristics and phenomena. Then comes a period of numerous studies and experiments, observations and other processes that should confirm or refute the hypothesis. If the hypothesis turns out to be incomplete, then it is corrected. If it has no basis at all for its occurrence, then it is completely abandoned.

Types of hypotheses

There are two types of hypothesis:

1. Theoretical – when it is necessary to eliminate contradictions and attribute a hypothesis to a specific theory.
2. Empirical – when the truth of a hypothesis needs to be proven.
3. Descriptive – when the characteristics of a specific object are considered. It also includes an existential hypothesis - consideration of the existence of something, for example, the hypothesis of the existence of Atlantis.
4. Explanatory – when connections and reasons for the development of specific phenomena are considered.
5. General – when phenomena affecting life as a whole are considered.
6. Particular - the characteristics of specific objects or even one object are considered.
7. Working – when a hypothesis is just being put forward and is at the stage of refutation or proof.
8. A hypothesis based on reality.
9. Scientific and experimental.
10. Experimental.
11. Statistical – parameters that are used for evidence or research are considered.

Be in doubt as a result?

IN modern world The best strategy for building relationships is to constantly doubt the veracity of the interlocutor. This is especially true for people whom you have just met. It is better not to trust others than to believe in their boundless kindness and end up in an unpleasant situation.

A modern person can easily deceive his interlocutor. People learn this from childhood, when they understand that their parents react in a certain way to certain words. The child gets used to telling his parents what they want to hear, which develops into the habit of communicating with others in the same way.

You may be no exception and notice a habit of resorting to lies in certain cases. For conscious and unconscious reasons, a person begins to lie, realizing what he is doing. Even in this case, he does not stop, because lies bring him more benefits than the truth.

Everyone lies or is simply wrong. There are people who deceive and understand that they are doing something wrong, which is why they later repent. And there are those who lie and do not feel remorse for what they did. Know that almost everyone you interact with is lying, especially if you have only known each other for a short time.

One significant feature of when a person does tell the truth should be noted. Whatever the truth, no matter how it hurts, it evokes respect from the interlocutor to whom it is spoken. You may be offended for hearing the truth, but at the same time you will have respect for the person for not being afraid to reveal the truth, no matter how bitter it may be, and jeopardize your relationship. Everyone reacts differently to the truth: some people are grateful for what they were told, others accuse the speaker of all sins. Telling the truth can sometimes become dangerous, especially for relationships. Those who don't take risks and don't say it don't get respect. Surprisingly, the bitter truth is a means of subconscious respect for the one who told it.

HYPOTHESIS

HYPOTHESIS

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

HYPOTHESIS

(from the Greek hypothesis - basis, basis)

a well-thought-out assumption, expressed in the form of scientific concepts, which should, in a certain place, fill the gaps of empirical knowledge or connect various empirical knowledge into a whole, or give a preliminary explanation of a fact or group of facts. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is confirmed by facts: “Hypotheses non fingo” (Latin) – “I do not invent hypotheses” (Newton). A hypothesis can exist only as long as it does not contradict reliable facts of experience, otherwise it becomes simply a fiction; it is verified (tested) by the relevant facts of experience, especially experiment, obtaining truths; it is fruitful as a heuristic or if it can lead to new knowledge and new ways of knowing. “The essential thing about a hypothesis is that it leads to new observations and investigations, whereby our conjecture is confirmed, refuted, or modified—in short, expanded” (Mach). The facts of experience of any limited scientific field, together with realized, strictly proven hypotheses or connecting, the 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 that includes both making an assumption and its subsequent proof.

Hypothesis as an assumption. G. plays a dual role: either as an assumption about one or another form of connection between observed phenomena, or as an assumption about the connection between observed phenomena and internal ones. the basis that produces them. G. of the first kind are called descriptive, and of the second - explanatory. As a scientific assumption, G. differs from an arbitrary guess in that it satisfies a number of requirements. The fulfillment of these requirements forms the consistency of the G. The first condition: the G. must explain the entire range of phenomena for the analysis of which it is put forward, if possible without contradicting previously established ones. facts and scientific provisions. However, if the explanation of these phenomena on the basis of consistency with known facts fails, statements are put forward that enter into agreement with previously proven positions. This is how many foundations arose. G. science.

The second condition: the fundamental verifiability of G. A hypothesis is an assumption about a certain directly unobservable basis of phenomena and can be verified only by comparing the consequences derived from it with experience. The inaccessibility of consequences to experimental verification means the unverifiability of G. It is necessary to distinguish between two types of unverifiability: practical. and principled. The first is that the consequences cannot be verified at the given level of development of science and technology, but in principle their verification is possible. G. that are practically unverifiable at the moment cannot be discarded, but they must be put forward with a certain caution; cannot concentrate his fundamentals. efforts to develop such G. The fundamental unverifiability of G. lies in the fact that it cannot give consequences that can be compared with experience. A striking example of a fundamentally untestable hypothesis is provided by the explanation proposed by Lorenz and Fitzgerald for the absence of an interference pattern in the Michelson experiment. The reduction in the length of any body assumed by them in the direction of its movement cannot in principle be detected by any measurement, because Together with the moving body, the scale ruler also experiences the same contraction, with the help of which the cut will be made. G., which do not lead to any observable consequences, except those for which they are specifically put forward to explain, and will be fundamentally unverifiable. The requirement for the fundamental verifiability of G. is, in the very essence of the matter, a deeply materialistic requirement, although it tries to use it in one’s own interests, especially one that empties the content from the requirement of verifiability, reducing it to the notorious beginning of fundamental observability (see Verifiability principle) or to the requirement of an operationalist definition of concepts (see Operationalism). Positivist speculation on the requirement of fundamental verifiability should not lead to declaring this very requirement to be positivist. The fundamental verifiability of a system is an extremely important condition for its consistency, directed against arbitrary constructions that do not allow any external detection and do not manifest themselves in any way outside.

The third condition: the applicability of G. to the widest possible range of phenomena. G. should be used to deduce not only those phenomena for which it is specifically put forward to explain, but also possibly wider phenomena that would seem to be not directly related to the original ones. Because it represents a single coherent whole and the separate exists only in that connection that leads to the general, G., proposed to explain the cl.-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 that specific one. 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 it means. its part is arbitrary. Such G. are hypothetical, i.e. G., put forward exclusively and only to explain this, are few in number. groups of facts. For example, quantum theory was originally proposed by Planck in 1900 to explain one relatively narrow group of facts—black body radiation. Basic The assumption of this theory about the existence of discrete portions of energy - quanta - was unusual and sharply contradicted the classical one. ideas. However, the quantum theory, for all its unusualness and the apparent ad hoc nature of the theory, turned out to be capable of subsequently explaining an exceptionally wide range of facts. In the particular region of black body radiation, it found a common basis that reveals itself in many other phenomena. This is exactly the nature of scientific research. G. in general.

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

Hypothesis as 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 draw attention to G. as a special conclusion; The advancement of any G. always begins with the study of the range of phenomena for which this G. is created to explain. With logical point of view, this means that the formulation of a set judgment for the construction of a group occurs: X is P1 and P2 and P3, etc., where P1, P2 are the signs of the group of phenomena being studied discovered by research, and X is the yet unknown bearer of these signs (their ). Among the available judgments, one is looking for one that, if possible, would contain the same particular predicates P1, P2, etc., but with an already known subject (): S is P1 and P2 and P3, etc. From the two available judgments the conclusion is drawn: X is P1 and P2 and P3; S is P1 and P2 and P3, therefore X = S.

The given inference is G.’s inference (in this sense, a hypothetical inference), and the judgment obtained in the conclusion is G. By appearance hypothetical the inference resembles the second categorical figure. a syllogism, but with two assertions, premises, which, as is known, represents a logically invalid form of conclusion. But this turns out to be external. The predicate of an attitudinal judgment, unlike the predicate in the premises of the second figure, has a complex structure and, to a greater or lesser extent, turns out to be specific, which gives the possibility of qualities. assessing the probability that if the predicates coincide, there is 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 will confirm. judgments. In this case, the coincidence of the predicates makes the probability of the coincidence of the subjects equal to 1. In the case of non-selective judgments, this probability ranges from 0 to 1. Ordinary ones will affirm. the premises in the second figure do not provide grounds for assessing this probability, and therefore are logically invalid here. In a hypothetical In conclusion, this is made on the basis of the complex nature of the predicate, which to a greater or lesser extent brings it closer to specificity. predicate of a distinguishing proposition.

Hypothesis[< греч. hypothesis – основание, предположение] – положение, выдвигаемое в качестве предварительного, условного объяснения некоторого явления или группы явлений; предположение о существовании некоторого явления. It is put forward on the basis of certain knowledge about the range of phenomena being studied and serves as a guiding idea that directs further observations and experiments. The hypothesis about the pedagogical process contains a concise description of it, in which the project of this process is “coordinated”. The hypothesis is one of the links in the development scientific knowledge.

In accordance with the purpose, object and subject of the study, research tasks are determined, which, as a rule, are aimed at testing hypotheses. The latter represents is a set of theoretically based assumptions, the truth of which is subject to verification.

Hypothesis- This is a scientifically based assumption. D.I. Mendeleev said that hypotheses are the compass that a researcher must follow in order not to get lost in the forest of facts and the ocean of thought. In a hypothesis, it is necessary to show what is not obvious in the object and subject of research, what is supposed to be discovered and verified during the work. The hypothesis must be fundamentally verifiable with available diagnostic tools, easy to understand and have a logical explanation.

Research hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the structure of the object being studied, about the nature and essence of the connections between its components, about the mechanism of their functioning and development. A hypothesis is a kind of forecast of the expected solution research problems. As a result of verification, it is either refuted or confirmed.

A hypothesis is an indispensable attribute of scientific research. It must be specified so that it requires experimental and theoretical proof due to its novelty, unusualness, and contradiction with existing knowledge. “In this sense, the hypothesis does not simply postulate that this remedy will improve the results of the process (sometimes this is obvious without proof), but suggests that this means, out of a number of possible ones, will be the best for certain conditions, that such and such a measure of use of the means will be rational for modern typical school conditions in terms of performance criteria and time expenditure teachers and students, etc.” (Babansky Yu.K., 1982). The hypothesis must follow from preliminary analysis theories and practices of education, be based on certain arguments, and not offered in the form of personal opinion.

A hypothesis can be neither true nor false, since this is not proven, but only probable, conjectural knowledge. A hypothesis can be said to be uncertain, between truth and falsehood. A proven hypothesis becomes true, and a refuted one becomes a false assumption. In both cases the hypothesis ceases to exist.

Every hypothesis is put forward in science strictly to solve a specific problem, explanations of new facts, elimination of contradictions between theory and new experimental data. Methods for substantiating a hypothesis can be divided into theoretical and empirical.

Theoretical methods cover study of hypotheses for consistency, empirical testability, applicability to the entire class of phenomena being studied, and its deducibility from more general provisions, for its approval through the theory within which it was put forward.

The criteria for the validity of a scientific hypothesis are as follows:

Consistency condition is one of the criteria for the validity of a hypothesis, which is interpreted as follows. The hypothesis must correspond to the material on the basis of which and to explain which it was put forward; the hypothesis must also comply with established laws and theories in science.

Verifiability There is a second necessary condition for the validity of the hypothesis. This means that a hypothesis must, in principle, allow for the possibility of refutation and the possibility of confirmation. Otherwise, the hypothesis cannot point the way for further research. A hypothesis has no right to rely only on faith and conviction that it is right.

The next way to substantiate a hypothesis is to test it for fundamental applicability to a wide class objects under study. A hypothesis must cover not only those phenomena for which it was created to explain, but also a possibly wider range of related phenomena. This is more or less characteristic of all fruitful scientific hypotheses.

Deriving a hypothesis from some more general provisions - this is the essence of the logical method of substantiating hypotheses. If the put forward assumption can be deduced from some established truths, this means that it is true. Therefore, when putting forward a hypothesis, it is desirable to proceed from certain theoretical, conceptual positions that could be used as a theoretical justification. As a basis, they refer, for example, to the idea of ​​integrity, which is formed by the activities of the teacher, students and their result, or to the content of the category of unity, which is inherent in the described activities. A theoretical justification is possible when the basis for the hypothesis is other, broader scientific hypotheses. Although this technique is not widely used regarding all hypotheses.

One way to confirm hypotheses is internal restructuring of the theory, within which it was put forward. This restructuring may consist in clarifying the fundamental principles of the theory, as a result of which new rules and norms are introduced.

Empirical methods hypotheses include direct observation of the phenomena assumed by the hypothesis, confirmation in experience of the consequences arising from it. Empirical methods of substantiating hypotheses are usually called verification or confirmation. Direct verification is the direct observation of those phenomena whose existence is assumed by the hypothesis.. A universal way to test hypotheses is to derive consequences from the hypothesis and test them experimentally. However, this method of verification only increases the likelihood of a hypothesis without asserting its truth.

When constructing a hypothesis, it is necessary to take into account that the hypothesis may not be confirmed. In this regard, it is necessary to formulate a multidimensional hypothesis covering two, three or more aspects of the processes and phenomena being studied. In this case, you can summarize what was confirmed from the hypothesis expressed and what was refuted. At the same time, it is not at all necessary to strive to ensure that everything is 100% confirmed. The credibility and persuasiveness of scientific research does not lie in smooth reporting.

Types of hypotheses. By logical structure hypotheses may have linear character, when one assumption is put forward and tested, or ramified, when multiple assumptions need to be tested.

The hypothesis may be descriptive, explanatory or predictive.

A descriptive hypothesis is an assumption about the essential properties of the object under study (classification), or about the nature of the connections between the elements of the object (structural), or about the degree of their interaction (functional hypothesis). Most often, a hypothesis is formulated in the form of a model of a phenomenon, conditions or activity and then tested in diagnostics.

An explanatory hypothesis defines cause-and-effect relationships, identifies causes, facts that were established as a result of confirming descriptive hypotheses.

A prognostic hypothesis helps to reveal objective trends in the functioning and development of the object being studied.

During the research process it can be taken working hypothesis, that is, a temporary assumption for systematizing the available factual material.

Not all studies need to include mandatory hypothesis. For example, in the field of history of pedagogy, a hypothesis is usually absent.

It often happens that in a study a hypothesis is present in a hidden form, but the author was embarrassed to define it, considering his assumption to be insignificant.

The general research hypothesis may constantly change during the work process. It regularly results in more than partial subhypotheses. However, the introduction sets out only the general hypothesis of the entire study, and more specific ones are given in the text of the dissertation. A scientific (or real) hypothesis is created with significant material, and can, with some amendments, turn into a scientific theory.

One of the main reasons for weak hypotheses in pedagogical research is insufficient scientific, general pedagogical and methodological preparation, which is most often associated with non-distinction between a practical task and a scientific problem.

Tasks

The goal and hypothesis determine the objectives of scientific research. Under task the purpose of activity given in certain specific conditions is understood; research objectives act as private, relatively independent goals in relation to the general goal of the study in the specific conditions of testing the formulated hypothesis.

Research objectives in their entirety, specify the goal and can be formulated in one of two options: as a sequence of steps or as components in achievement. In the first case the transition to solving each next task is assumed only after completing the previous one, the results of which become the basis for further work. In the second case research tasks are solved in parallel, and combining their results leads to achieving the goal. In any case, the formulation of the problem should plan to achieve a specific result (begin with the words “identify”, “justify”, “establish”, etc.), and do not project upcoming actions (“analyze”, “carry out”, “study”, etc.), do not duplicate the action plan .

Usually no more than three or four tasks are put forward, classifying more specific tasks as subtasks to one of the main ones. There cannot be a single standard in the formulation of tasks, but still most often

The first of the put forward tasks is related to identifying the essence, nature, structure, laws of functioning and development of the object being studied, for example, analysis (historical, comparative, statistical, systemic, complex, critical, methodological, factorial), opening, identifying, acquaintance, research, study , description.

The second task is aimed at revealing general methods of transforming an object, at building its models: development, addition, use, generalization, confirmation, evaluation, construction, development, development, consideration, improvement, creation, comparison.

The third task is aimed at creating and developing specific methods of pedagogical action, developing practical recommendations: testing, implementation, application, use.

Objectives can be formulated as relatively independent completed stages of research. For example, firstly, to identify features, secondly, to develop, thirdly, to test something under certain specific conditions. Or something like this: spend scientific analysis state of theory and practice, develop pedagogical technology implementation, experimentally verify the effectiveness. In this case, a step-by-step solution to problems is visible, when each subsequent problem can be solved only on the basis of the previous one.

Objectives can be formulated as specific goals (subgoals) in relation to the general goal of the study, specified in the specific conditions imposed by the formulated research hypothesis.

Three types of cognitive tasks play an important role in scientific research: empirical, theoretical and methodological.

Empirical cognitive tasks consist in identifying, studying and describing facts about the objects being studied. To solve empirical cognitive problems, special methods of cognition are developed: observation, experiment, measurement. Empirical methods of cognition are used to study objects that have already been identified and included in scientific research or to identify and record proposed objects.

Theoretical cognitive tasks are always aimed at real objects, because there can be no “subjectless” research. In formulating and solving theoretical cognitive problems, the scientist proceeds from a deterministic concept, which is deciphered as a requirement to search for the dependence of some specific phenomena, processes, properties or characteristics on other specific phenomena, processes, properties, characteristics. In any theoretical study, researchers necessarily proceed from existing knowledge (existing scientific problems, laws, theories, hypotheses and descriptions of facts).

Methodological cognitive tasks are aimed at studying the logical structure of scientific theories, their components (definitions, classifications, concepts, laws). Here the question of the consistency and completeness of theories, the methods of forming and testing scientific hypotheses is considered, the logical aspects of such methods of scientific knowledge as generalization, explanation, abstraction, and idealization are analyzed.