Hypothesis? Just a fancy word for guess.

I have this strong feeling that for a large section of the population just the term ‘scientific method’ is a cue to turn off and tune out (as Timothy Leary very nearly said), but it’s pretty much a formalisation of something that we recognise from normal life and use constantly. 

So maybe we should approach it from a sexier perspective. Murder is sexy; I'm sure I read that somewhere.

It’s murder out there I tell you.

When we hear two different and conflicting assertions how do we decide which to believe, and why should we care? Well, for a start we all love a good courtroom drama and lives might be on the line.

In a murder trial you have two opposing views, that the accused is guilty and that he’s not.  Which is true and how can you decide?

Innocent until proven guilty

In the UK and US system of law there’s a presumption of innocence. It’s up to the accuser to prove the case, not the defendant to prove innocence.  Scientific method makes the same presumption. 

If you make an assertion then it’s up to you to prove it is true, not for anyone else to prove you are wrong.  If you can’t provide a good reason why it might be true, then you shouldn’t expect anyone to believe it.

If you are claiming anything, whether it’s that drinking molten lead is good for a sore throat or that you speak with the voice of God, it’s up to you to prove it’s true. 

If you are one of those who nods your head in agreement with someone who doesn’t offer any evidence then I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap, or you may want to join the Scientologists because they love people like you.

Making the accusation

When the prosecution makes its case it has to set up a plausible scenario. It has to set out that a crime happened and an explanation of who committed it.

In other words they have to present a case which takes account of the facts as they are known (It’s obvious this is a hypothetical case. If the courts had to be as rigorous as science our jails would be empty).

It was Mr Green in kitchen with the candlestick.

In science this is the HYPOTHESIS.   

At the simplest level a hypothesis is commonly considered to have to:

• Offer an explanation of a phenomena or event (like how Dr Black’s dead body turned up in the kitchen).
• Be consist with what’s already known (If Dr Black is happy and well and waving from the gallery there’s not a lot of point in accusing someone of shuffling him off this mortal coil),
• Be logically solid (Dr Black is dead, it’s black at night, bats fly at night, so Dr Black must have been killed by a bat. I think not.)
• Be able to be tested against new evidence.

However, not all hypothesis are created equal. 

The more data a hypothesis is consistent with, and the fewer unknowns and conjectures it introduces, then the stronger it is.  If it’s very strong indeed then it can be considered a ‘working hypothesis’  and - for convenience sake -  used as if it is true.

M‘lud, for my next witness I call…

THE NEXT POST WILL LOOK AT THE CONCEPT OF 'PROOF'