4 ms·
It kind of is. Hypothesis rejection is the primary means of advancing knowledge. "We tried to prove this hypothesis wrong and could not" is the main thing you
by GavinB 6y ago
It kind of is. Hypothesis rejection is the primary means of advancing knowledge.
"We tried to prove this hypothesis wrong and could not" is the main thing you want a study to do. Having everyone try to prove your hypothesis wrong, and failing, is the main way that science advances.
- gamblor956 6y agoNo, science proceeds on the basis of trying to prove a hypothesis is correct. As in, I hypothesize A should B, evidence XYZ supports this. You accomplish very little trying to prove a hypothesis wrong, because most are.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoWhile you are correct conceptually, most scientific research using statistics does in fact attempt to provide evidence against no-effect (the null hypothesis). The p-value of a scientific study is the probability that the given data would have been observed, given that there is no effect. Hence why small p-values can be associated with the success of the alternative hypothesis (i.e. what a scientist actually thinks will happen).
- RobertoG 6y agoWe should remember Popper (1). You can't prove an hypothesis is correct. All models are temporal until they are disprove. (1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- roelschroeven 6y agoI know some people who tap a can of Coke before they open it, because "that prevents it from spilling". Each time they do that, they are more convinced that their hypothesis is correct. But is it correct? To find out, we need to try to invalidate it. Try opening the can without tapping it first. If the Coke doesn't spill, the hypothesis is clearly wrong. It the Coke does spill now, it's quite strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis.
- mav3rick 6y agoLol no ! You prove a hypothesis to be correct.
- ineedasername 6y agoNo, really, it is not. In your own example you're already jumping to testing a hypothesis. "Scientific method" isn't just a vague phrase, there literally is a specific method of steps to go through. The first step is Observation. Sometimes split out into Observation, then Research. Then comes the formulation of a hypothesis. After that is constructing a way to test the hypothesis. Not to prove it wrong, not to prove it right, but to test it. There's more after that, it's an iterative process and a single test of a hypothesis isn't always definitive, often it is not. But "Prove me wrong" is not the starting point.