answersLogoWhite

0

you can prove a hypothesis false by giving a counterexample

say you had the hypothesis "all whole numbers are odd", which holds for 1 and 3 but once you try 2 the hypothesis is proved wrong

but giving a lot of examples that are consistent with the hypothesis does no prove it to be true

the fact that you haven't found any counterexamples doesn't mean there aren't any Most science uses inductive reasoning.APEX ___________________ Take this make-believe scenario: I am investigating the properties of water, and I need to know all I can about how water, ice and heat interact. I know that when water gets cold enough, it freezes, and that when ice is exposed to heat, it melts. I might come up with a hypothesis-- a first attempt to understand what is happening with water and ice. I hypothesize: Since water is the liquid state of H2O, and liquids are warmer than their solid forms, water must be warmer than ice. It must be that as soon as water forms from melting ice, it is at least a little warmer than the ice. After all, at zero degrees water becomes ice. At this point, I do not know for sure, but I am speculating (hypothesizing) based on the general information that I have. I wonder how I can test my hypothesis: Let us assume that I can measure the temperature of ice and of water with great accuracy. I should be able to easily make a mixture of ice and water, while measuring the temperature of each independently.

  • If my hypothesis is correct, I will find that at one atmosphere of pressure and in a chamber kept at exactly zero degrees Celsius the ice will warm to zero degrees Celsius and it will get no warmer. When it is warmer, it is water and not ice.
  • I will also observe that the water will be at least a little above zero degrees Celsius when it first melts away from the ice.
  • I apply heat to the ice and some ice melts.
To my surprise and annoyance, I find that the water is exactly zero degrees Celsius. We have a problem. My fellow engineers need an answer, and I've been hyping my hypothesis all over the place. Eureka! I have found it! Keeping the chamber at zero degrees is the problem; as soon as the ice melts, the chamber air starts to cool the water, and it must also be cooling the thermometers, leading to an experimental error in the readings! I'll keep the chamber at 5 degrees Celsius. I go back to the lab and I notice that my containers now all have a mix of ice and water, and the chamber is at exactly zero degrees Celsius. Not only that, all the ice is now at zero degrees Celsius, and so is the water! Exactly! Now I am just plain confused. I leave the chamber exactly as it is for several days and nothing changes. Everything in the chamber is verified to be at zero degrees Celsius, water is not in the process of freezing, and the ice is no longer melting. It just all stays in equilibrium. If my hypothesis were correct, there would be no water in the chamber, because supposedly at zero degrees Celsius all water is ice, and water is always at least a little above zero degrees. My hypothesis has tanked; time for a new one. I wonder and wonder, and spend a few sleepless nights. Then I realize-- it has something to do with heat; it must. It has something to do with adding or with taking away heat... Hmmm. Testing a hypothesis is something like that. You wonder, and you explore. Hypotheses develop, and may become well-known theories when they seem to be able to withstand test after test designed to expose them false. When you think about it, how would you develop an experiment that exposes a hypothesis as true? They would be the very same tests, with results that support the hypothesis. Reality determines the outcome, not really the 'test'. A silly or inconsequential test will still show results in support of reality. But as mentioned above, even if all completed tests support a hypothesis, that is not to say that some unexpected approach will not be applied tomorrow.
User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago

What else can I help you with?

Related Questions

What is a statement that presents the possible solution?

A statement that presents a possible solution to a problem is the hypothesis. You construct a hypothesis, then work to prove it. Basic geometry concentrates on proving various nypotheses.


What is proving a hypothesis?

'THEORY'


Proving A hypothesis is called what?

'THEORY'


Which is more helpful proving a hypothesis wrong or supporting a hypothesis?

To do it right


What is a hypothesis in an experiment?

The idea that you are testing or proving/disproving.


Steps to be taken for falsification of cv?

proving a hypothesis to be false.


Hypothesis and how would you go proving a hypothesis?

you would figure it out my getting all the supplys you need and then testing it


Is accepting an hypothesis the same as proving it to be true?

No, accepting a hypothesis is not the same as proving it to be true. Accepting a hypothesis typically means that it is considered plausible based on available evidence, but it has not undergone rigorous testing or validation to confirm its truth. Proving a hypothesis requires systematic experimentation and analysis that yields consistent results, establishing it as a reliable explanation of a phenomenon. In science, hypotheses remain subject to revision or rejection as new evidence emerges.


What does it mean to say that if a hypothesis is scientific then there must be means of proving that it was wrong?

kkk


A scientist on television states that a hypothesis cannot be proven Access why this statement is correct?

This statement is correct because a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that has not been validated through experimentation and evidence. Scientific inquiry aims to test and gather evidence to support or reject a hypothesis, rather than proving it true. It is always possible for new evidence or data to emerge that could challenge or refine a hypothesis.


Why can you falsify a hypothesis but never prove it to be true?

You can falsify a hypothesis because it is possible to design experiments or gather evidence that contradicts the hypothesis, thus showing it is not valid. However, proving a hypothesis true is more challenging because no amount of positive evidence can account for all possible scenarios or future observations. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, meaning it can be revised or replaced with new evidence. Therefore, while you can demonstrate that a hypothesis is false, you can only support it with evidence without achieving absolute proof.


Why was wegeners idea denied?

The scientific means for proving his hypothesis had not yet been developed.