What must happen for your hypothosis to be valid?

Answer 1

It depends upon the nature of your study. In systematic logic, there is no "truth" only valid, invalid, sound and unsound. Both are measures of the quality of a statement or argument (ala, your hypothesis)

In scientific study, you would have to have a very narrow hypothesis that is testable to all applicable degrees. Once this hypothesis is tested against, you will know that it is true or false, if it is true, it becomes a theory (i might be skipping a few steps here for brevity's sake, but bear with me). In science, there are no facts, because your "theory" could be dis-proven in the future by the hypothesis of another.

For instance, my hypothesis is that coins are affected by gravity to fall faster than feathers because they are heavier. I prove that they are heavier, and prove that unerringly, they fall faster than feathers. I cannot think of more tests, so I declare my hypothesis true.

Another scientist hypothesizes that it has nothing to do with weight, and disproves my theory by finding a coin that is lighter than a feather, and showing that, in fact, it still drops at a faster rate than the feather. So his hypothesis is true.

That causes me to think about my original hypothesis more, and then come up with the hypothesis of density being the causal factor. I prove yet again through testing. But my hypothesis is disproved by another scientist who puts both the feather and the coin in a vacuum, and showing that they drop at the same rate. To make my hypothesis completely moot, he finds a coin less dense than a feather, and shows that it still drops faster.

Because of his experiment, he hypothesizes that it is friction that allows a feather to fall slowly, and proves it. That theory stands today. It is waiting for someone to disprove it and create a new hypothesis that outlasts it.

however, you dont need a new hypothesis to disprove an old one, you just need a test that shows the old hypothesis to be untrue. For instance, using a vacuum doesnt necessarily prove anything until that scientist has his own hypothesis. what it does do, though, is disprove my older hypothesis that density is the causal factor.