Thoughts on "A Brief History of the Hypothesis"

I was given an article to read this week written by David J. Glass and Ned Hall. This four page long paper explains the philosophical implications of the hypothesis. It is argued that there are two frameworks: the hypothesis and the model. The hypothesis is “an idea or postulate that must be phrased as a statement of fact, so that it can be subjected to falsification instead of verification”. However, the model has no use of the hypothesis, since it is an unproven assumption that can taint our perception and results that make up reality. The model is based off of inductive reasoning, which allows the scientist to conclude that the past results will yield exactly the same ones in the future.

                It came to my surprise that there seems to be a controversy about the existence of a hypothesis in the scientific method. Newton apparently did not use the hypothesis for his observations of how the physical world works.  It is also interesting that the idea that past results of observations will yield to same results in the future is criticized. Scottish philosopher David Hume rejected the idea that our past events predict the future. One reason that I can think he would conclude that has to be that we must assume that in order for us to use inductive reasoning, everything from previous conditions will be the same. An apple falling from the tree and landing on the ground may not land in the same place tomorrow. This is best described as the “problem of induction”. The article goes further into depth by mentioning Critical Rationalism, a philosophy created by Karl Popper who tried to follow in the footsteps of Hume’s radical skepticism.

                Despite all of this, the use of inductive reasoning had been defended from the criticism it has received, especially from the medical field. If doctors were to follow this logic, then they would not be able to give more medicine to their patients because past treatment would not allow the patient to become healthier. The main conclusion of the article is that we should abandon the hypothesis and allow the use of the model.

I have to admit that the article was a bit condensed to read and a bit confusing. The idea of the hypothesis being considered to be discarded is something new to me. Even if it is an unproven assumption, it does not make it false. Science operates under assumptions that can’t be proven, either! To say that “we will use science to prove science” would be arguing in a circle! It has been my experience that the hypotheses is based on what has been observed and make a prediction. Falsification is an important concept of the scientific method. Even if the hypothesis cannot be verified, it does not make it false or biased against reality. The use of the hypothesis is one of the first steps in understanding how a naturalistic phenomenon occurs.  I like the idea of a model but I find it to be empty without a hypothesis because it lacks authoritative strength in a statement that relates to the hypothesis. I think David Hume goes too far in his skepticism for past and future observations. From firsthand experience, it can be shown that, under the right conditions, past events can be recreated.  I say that the hypothesis should be kept.

REFERENCES

1) Glass, David J. & Hall, Ned. "A Brief History of the Hypothesis". Cell. 134, August 8, 2008.