popular scientific hypothesis

Subscribe or renew today

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

Top 10 revolutionary scientific theories.

Alfred Wegener, shown here on a trip to Greenland in 1912–1913, proposed his ideas about continental drift as early as 1912, a concept later incorporated into the revolutionary theory of plate tectonics.

Archive of Alfred Wegener Institute/Wikimedia Commons

A hidden danger lurks beneath Yellowstone

Tracking feature in Snapchat can make people feel excluded.

Online spaces may intensify teens’ uncertainty in social interactions

One yellow butterfly visits a purple flower while a second one flutters nearby. They are in focus while an area of wild grasses and flowers, with some buildigns visible behind them, is blurrier.

Want to see butterflies in your backyard? Try doing less yardwork

Eight individuals wearing beekeepers suit are surrounding two bee-hive boxes as they stand against a mountainous background. One of the people are holding a bee hive frame covered in bees, and everyone else seem to be paying attention to the frame.

Ximena Velez-Liendo is saving Andean bears with honey

A photograph of two female scientists cooking meet in a laboratory

‘Flavorama’ guides readers through the complex landscape of flavor

Rain Bosworth smiling and looking at a parent-child pair to her left. She has blonde hair and blue eyes and wearing blue button-up shirt. The parent is looking at an iPad, sitting in front of them on a round table. The iPad is displaying what appears to be a video with a person signing. The parent has black hair and wearing a navy polka dot shirt. The child is sitting on the parent's lap and staring at Bosworth.

Rain Bosworth studies how deaf children experience the world

A woman is pictured in front of three overlapping circles, representing the three stars of an alien star system, in an image from the Netflix show "3 Body Problem."

Separating science fact from fiction in Netflix’s ‘3 Body Problem’

Language model misses depression in Black people's social media posts.

Language models may miss signs of depression in Black people’s Facebook posts

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

A girl looks at plants in a test tube for a science experiment. What's her scientific hypothesis?

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

Types of hypotheses
Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research.

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

Elementary-age students study alternative energy using homemade windmills during public school science class.

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (BCcampus, 2015).

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley .

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Collapse of Earth's magnetic field may have fueled evolution of life 600 million years ago

The Gulf Stream stopped pumping nutrients during the last ice age — and the same could be happening now

Gargantuan sunspot 15-Earths wide shoots powerful X-class flare toward Earth, triggering radio blackouts

Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws: Definitions, examples, and their roles in science

by Anthony Carpi, Ph.D., Anne E. Egger, Ph.D.

Listen to this reading

Did you know that the idea of evolution had been part of Western thought for more than 2,000 years before Charles Darwin was born? Like many theories, the theory of evolution was the result of the work of many different scientists working in different disciplines over a period of time.

A scientific theory is an explanation inferred from multiple lines of evidence for some broad aspect of the natural world and is logical, testable, and predictive.

As new evidence comes to light, or new interpretations of existing data are proposed, theories may be revised and even change; however, they are not tenuous or speculative.

A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge.

A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.

Imagine yourself shopping in a grocery store with a good friend who happens to be a chemist. Struggling to choose between the many different types of tomatoes in front of you, you pick one up, turn to your friend, and ask her if she thinks the tomato is organic . Your friend simply chuckles and replies, "Of course it's organic!" without even looking at how the fruit was grown. Why the amused reaction? Your friend is highlighting a simple difference in vocabulary. To a chemist, the term organic refers to any compound in which hydrogen is bonded to carbon. Tomatoes (like all plants) are abundant in organic compounds – thus your friend's laughter. In modern agriculture, however, organic has come to mean food items grown or raised without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other additives.

So who is correct? You both are. Both uses of the word are correct, though they mean different things in different contexts. There are, of course, lots of words that have more than one meaning (like bat , for example), but multiple meanings can be especially confusing when two meanings convey very different ideas and are specific to one field of study.

Scientific theories

The term theory also has two meanings, and this double meaning often leads to confusion. In common language, the term theory generally refers to speculation or a hunch or guess. You might have a theory about why your favorite sports team isn't playing well, or who ate the last cookie from the cookie jar. But these theories do not fit the scientific use of the term. In science, a theory is a well-substantiated and comprehensive set of ideas that explains a phenomenon in nature. A scientific theory is based on large amounts of data and observations that have been collected over time. Scientific theories can be tested and refined by additional research , and they allow scientists to make predictions. Though you may be correct in your hunch, your cookie jar conjecture doesn't fit this more rigorous definition.

All scientific disciplines have well-established, fundamental theories . For example, atomic theory describes the nature of matter and is supported by multiple lines of evidence from the way substances behave and react in the world around us (see our series on Atomic Theory ). Plate tectonic theory describes the large scale movement of the outer layer of the Earth and is supported by evidence from studies about earthquakes , magnetic properties of the rocks that make up the seafloor , and the distribution of volcanoes on Earth (see our series on Plate Tectonic Theory ). The theory of evolution by natural selection , which describes the mechanism by which inherited traits that affect survivability or reproductive success can cause changes in living organisms over generations , is supported by extensive studies of DNA , fossils , and other types of scientific evidence (see our Charles Darwin series for more information). Each of these major theories guides and informs modern research in those fields, integrating a broad, comprehensive set of ideas.

So how are these fundamental theories developed, and why are they considered so well supported? Let's take a closer look at some of the data and research supporting the theory of natural selection to better see how a theory develops.

Comprehension Checkpoint

The development of a scientific theory: Evolution and natural selection

The theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes maligned as Charles Darwin 's speculation on the origin of modern life forms. However, evolutionary theory is not speculation. While Darwin is rightly credited with first articulating the theory of natural selection, his ideas built on more than a century of scientific research that came before him, and are supported by over a century and a half of research since.

The Fixity Notion: Linnaeus

Figure 1: Cover of the 1760 edition of Systema Naturae .

Research about the origins and diversity of life proliferated in the 18th and 19th centuries. Carolus Linnaeus , a Swedish botanist and the father of modern taxonomy (see our module Taxonomy I for more information), was a devout Christian who believed in the concept of Fixity of Species , an idea based on the biblical story of creation. The Fixity of Species concept said that each species is based on an ideal form that has not changed over time. In the early stages of his career, Linnaeus traveled extensively and collected data on the structural similarities and differences between different species of plants. Noting that some very different plants had similar structures, he began to piece together his landmark work, Systema Naturae, in 1735 (Figure 1). In Systema , Linnaeus classified organisms into related groups based on similarities in their physical features. He developed a hierarchical classification system , even drawing relationships between seemingly disparate species (for example, humans, orangutans, and chimpanzees) based on the physical similarities that he observed between these organisms. Linnaeus did not explicitly discuss change in organisms or propose a reason for his hierarchy, but by grouping organisms based on physical characteristics, he suggested that species are related, unintentionally challenging the Fixity notion that each species is created in a unique, ideal form.

The age of Earth: Leclerc and Hutton

Also in the early 1700s, Georges-Louis Leclerc, a French naturalist, and James Hutton , a Scottish geologist, began to develop new ideas about the age of the Earth. At the time, many people thought of the Earth as 6,000 years old, based on a strict interpretation of the events detailed in the Christian Old Testament by the influential Scottish Archbishop Ussher. By observing other planets and comets in the solar system , Leclerc hypothesized that Earth began as a hot, fiery ball of molten rock, mostly consisting of iron. Using the cooling rate of iron, Leclerc calculated that Earth must therefore be at least 70,000 years old in order to have reached its present temperature.

Hutton approached the same topic from a different perspective, gathering observations of the relationships between different rock formations and the rates of modern geological processes near his home in Scotland. He recognized that the relatively slow processes of erosion and sedimentation could not create all of the exposed rock layers in only a few thousand years (see our module The Rock Cycle ). Based on his extensive collection of data (just one of his many publications ran to 2,138 pages), Hutton suggested that the Earth was far older than human history – hundreds of millions of years old.

While we now know that both Leclerc and Hutton significantly underestimated the age of the Earth (by about 4 billion years), their work shattered long-held beliefs and opened a window into research on how life can change over these very long timescales.

Fossil studies lead to the development of a theory of evolution: Cuvier

Figure 2: Illustration of an Indian elephant jaw and a mammoth jaw from Cuvier's 1796 paper.

With the age of Earth now extended by Leclerc and Hutton, more researchers began to turn their attention to studying past life. Fossils are the main way to study past life forms, and several key studies on fossils helped in the development of a theory of evolution . In 1795, Georges Cuvier began to work at the National Museum in Paris as a naturalist and anatomist. Through his work, Cuvier became interested in fossils found near Paris, which some claimed were the remains of the elephants that Hannibal rode over the Alps when he invaded Rome in 218 BCE . In studying both the fossils and living species , Cuvier documented different patterns in the dental structure and number of teeth between the fossils and modern elephants (Figure 2) (Horner, 1843). Based on these data , Cuvier hypothesized that the fossil remains were not left by Hannibal, but were from a distinct species of animal that once roamed through Europe and had gone extinct thousands of years earlier: the mammoth. The concept of species extinction had been discussed by a few individuals before Cuvier, but it was in direct opposition to the Fixity of Species concept – if every organism were based on a perfectly adapted, ideal form, how could any cease to exist? That would suggest it was no longer ideal.

While his work provided critical evidence of extinction , a key component of evolution , Cuvier was highly critical of the idea that species could change over time. As a result of his extensive studies of animal anatomy, Cuvier had developed a holistic view of organisms , stating that the

number, direction, and shape of the bones that compose each part of an animal's body are always in a necessary relation to all the other parts, in such a way that ... one can infer the whole from any one of them ...

In other words, Cuvier viewed each part of an organism as a unique, essential component of the whole organism. If one part were to change, he believed, the organism could not survive. His skepticism about the ability of organisms to change led him to criticize the whole idea of evolution , and his prominence in France as a scientist played a large role in discouraging the acceptance of the idea in the scientific community.

Studies of invertebrates support a theory of change in species: Lamarck

Jean Baptiste Lamarck, a contemporary of Cuvier's at the National Museum in Paris, studied invertebrates like insects and worms. As Lamarck worked through the museum's large collection of invertebrates, he was impressed by the number and variety of organisms . He became convinced that organisms could, in fact, change through time, stating that

... time and favorable conditions are the two principal means which nature has employed in giving existence to all her productions. We know that for her time has no limit, and that consequently she always has it at her disposal.

This was a radical departure from both the fixity concept and Cuvier's ideas, and it built on the long timescale that geologists had recently established. Lamarck proposed that changes that occurred during an organism 's lifetime could be passed on to their offspring, suggesting, for example, that a body builder's muscles would be inherited by their children.

As it turned out, the mechanism by which Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time was wrong, and he is now often referred to disparagingly for his "inheritance of acquired characteristics" idea. Yet despite the fact that some of his ideas were discredited, Lamarck established a support for evolutionary theory that others would build on and improve.

Rock layers as evidence for evolution: Smith

In the early 1800s, a British geologist and canal surveyor named William Smith added another component to the accumulating evidence for evolution . Smith observed that rock layers exposed in different parts of England bore similarities to one another: These layers (or strata) were arranged in a predictable order, and each layer contained distinct groups of fossils . From this series of observations , he developed a hypothesis that specific groups of animals followed one another in a definite sequence through Earth's history, and this sequence could be seen in the rock layers. Smith's hypothesis was based on his knowledge of geological principles , including the Law of Superposition.

The Law of Superposition states that sediments are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest sediments deposited first, or at the bottom, and newer layers deposited on top. The concept was first expressed by the Persian scientist Avicenna in the 11th century, but was popularized by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno in the 17th century. Note that the law does not state how sediments are deposited; it simply describes the relationship between the ages of deposited sediments.

Figure 3: Engraving from William Smith's 1815 monograph on identifying strata by fossils.

Smith backed up his hypothesis with extensive drawings of fossils uncovered during his research (Figure 3), thus allowing other scientists to confirm or dispute his findings. His hypothesis has, in fact, been confirmed by many other scientists and has come to be referred to as the Law of Faunal Succession. His work was critical to the formation of evolutionary theory as it not only confirmed Cuvier's work that organisms have gone extinct , but it also showed that the appearance of life does not date to the birth of the planet. Instead, the fossil record preserves a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the past, and in doing so offers evidence for change in organisms over time.

The theory of evolution by natural selection: Darwin and Wallace

It was into this world that Charles Darwin entered: Linnaeus had developed a taxonomy of organisms based on their physical relationships, Leclerc and Hutton demonstrated that there was sufficient time in Earth's history for organisms to change, Cuvier showed that species of organisms have gone extinct , Lamarck proposed that organisms change over time, and Smith established a timeline of the appearance and disappearance of different organisms in the geological record .

Figure 4: Title page of the 1859 Murray edition of the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin collected data during his work as a naturalist on the HMS Beagle starting in 1831. He took extensive notes on the geology of the places he visited; he made a major find of fossils of extinct animals in Patagonia and identified an extinct giant ground sloth named Megatherium . He experienced an earthquake in Chile that stranded beds of living mussels above water, where they would be preserved for years to come.

Perhaps most famously, he conducted extensive studies of animals on the Galápagos Islands, noting subtle differences in species of mockingbird, tortoise, and finch that were isolated on different islands with different environmental conditions. These subtle differences made the animals highly adapted to their environments .

This broad spectrum of data led Darwin to propose an idea about how organisms change "by means of natural selection" (Figure 4). But this idea was not based only on his work, it was also based on the accumulation of evidence and ideas of many others before him. Because his proposal encompassed and explained many different lines of evidence and previous work, they formed the basis of a new and robust scientific theory regarding change in organisms – the theory of evolution by natural selection .

Darwin's ideas were grounded in evidence and data so compelling that if he had not conceived them, someone else would have. In fact, someone else did. Between 1858 and 1859, Alfred Russel Wallace , a British naturalist, wrote a series of letters to Darwin that independently proposed natural selection as the means for evolutionary change. The letters were presented to the Linnean Society of London, a prominent scientific society at the time (see our module on Scientific Institutions and Societies ). This long chain of research highlights that theories are not just the work of one individual. At the same time, however, it often takes the insight and creativity of individuals to put together all of the pieces and propose a new theory . Both Darwin and Wallace were experienced naturalists who were familiar with the work of others. While all of the work leading up to 1830 contributed to the theory of evolution , Darwin's and Wallace's theory changed the way that future research was focused by presenting a comprehensive, well-substantiated set of ideas, thus becoming a fundamental theory of biological research.

Expanding, testing, and refining scientific theories
Genetics and evolution: Mendel and Dobzhansky

Since Darwin and Wallace first published their ideas, extensive research has tested and expanded the theory of evolution by natural selection . Darwin had no concept of genes or DNA or the mechanism by which characteristics were inherited within a species . A contemporary of Darwin's, the Austrian monk Gregor Mendel , first presented his own landmark study, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, in 1865 in which he provided the basic patterns of genetic inheritance , describing which characteristics (and evolutionary changes) can be passed on in organisms (see our Genetics I module for more information). Still, it wasn't until much later that a "gene" was defined as the heritable unit.

In 1937, the Ukrainian born geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of Species , a seminal work in which he described genes themselves and demonstrated that it is through mutations in genes that change occurs. The work defined evolution as "a change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool" ( Dobzhansky, 1982 ). These studies and others in the field of genetics have added to Darwin's work, expanding the scope of the theory .

Evolution under a microscope: Lenski

More recently, Dr. Richard Lenski, a scientist at Michigan State University, isolated a single Escherichia coli bacterium in 1989 as the first step of the longest running experimental test of evolutionary theory to date – a true test meant to replicate evolution and natural selection in the lab.

After the single microbe had multiplied, Lenski isolated the offspring into 12 different strains , each in their own glucose-supplied culture, predicting that the genetic make-up of each strain would change over time to become more adapted to their specific culture as predicted by evolutionary theory . These 12 lines have been nurtured for over 40,000 bacterial generations (luckily bacterial generations are much shorter than human generations) and exposed to different selective pressures such as heat , cold, antibiotics, and infection with other microorganisms. Lenski and colleagues have studied dozens of aspects of evolutionary theory with these genetically isolated populations . In 1999, they published a paper that demonstrated that random genetic mutations were common within the populations and highly diverse across different individual bacteria . However, "pivotal" mutations that are associated with beneficial changes in the group are shared by all descendants in a population and are much rarer than random mutations, as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection (Papadopoulos et al., 1999).

Punctuated equilibrium: Gould and Eldredge

While established scientific theories like evolution have a wealth of research and evidence supporting them, this does not mean that they cannot be refined as new information or new perspectives on existing data become available. For example, in 1972, biologist Stephen Jay Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldredge took a fresh look at the existing data regarding the timing by which evolutionary change takes place. Gould and Eldredge did not set out to challenge the theory of evolution; rather they used it as a guiding principle and asked more specific questions to add detail and nuance to the theory. This is true of all theories in science: they provide a framework for additional research. At the time, many biologists viewed evolution as occurring gradually, causing small incremental changes in organisms at a relatively steady rate. The idea is referred to as phyletic gradualism , and is rooted in the geological concept of uniformitarianism . After reexamining the available data, Gould and Eldredge came to a different explanation, suggesting that evolution consists of long periods of stability that are punctuated by occasional instances of dramatic change – a process they called punctuated equilibrium .

Like Darwin before them, their proposal is rooted in evidence and research on evolutionary change, and has been supported by multiple lines of evidence. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is now considered its own theory in evolutionary biology. Punctuated equilibrium is not as broad of a theory as natural selection . In science, some theories are broad and overarching of many concepts, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection; others focus on concepts at a smaller, or more targeted, scale such as punctuated equilibrium. And punctuated equilibrium does not challenge or weaken the concept of natural selection; rather, it represents a change in our understanding of the timing by which change occurs in organisms , and a theory within a theory. The theory of evolution by natural selection now includes both gradualism and punctuated equilibrium to describe the rate at which change proceeds.

Hypotheses and laws: Other scientific concepts

One of the challenges in understanding scientific terms like theory is that there is not a precise definition even within the scientific community. Some scientists debate over whether certain proposals merit designation as a hypothesis or theory , and others mistakenly use the terms interchangeably. But there are differences in these terms. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. Hypotheses , just like theories , are based on observations from research . For example, LeClerc did not hypothesize that Earth had cooled from a molten ball of iron as a random guess; rather, he developed this hypothesis based on his observations of information from meteorites.

A scientist often proposes a hypothesis before research confirms it as a way of predicting the outcome of study to help better define the parameters of the research. LeClerc's hypothesis allowed him to use known parameters (the cooling rate of iron) to do additional work. A key component of a formal scientific hypothesis is that it is testable and falsifiable. For example, when Richard Lenski first isolated his 12 strains of bacteria , he likely hypothesized that random mutations would cause differences to appear within a period of time in the different strains of bacteria. But when a hypothesis is generated in science, a scientist will also make an alternative hypothesis , an explanation that explains a study if the data do not support the original hypothesis. If the different strains of bacteria in Lenski's work did not diverge over the indicated period of time, perhaps the rate of mutation was slower than first thought.

So you might ask, if theories are so well supported, do they eventually become laws? The answer is no – not because they aren't well-supported, but because theories and laws are two very different things. Laws describe phenomena, often mathematically. Theories, however, explain phenomena. For example, in 1687 Isaac Newton proposed a Theory of Gravitation, describing gravity as a force of attraction between two objects. As part of this theory, Newton developed a Law of Universal Gravitation that explains how this force operates. This law states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. Newton 's Law does not explain why this is true, but it describes how gravity functions (see our Gravity: Newtonian Relationships module for more detail). In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his theory of general relativity to explain the mechanism by which gravity has its effect. Einstein's work challenges Newton's theory, and has been found after extensive testing and research to more accurately describe the phenomenon of gravity. While Einstein's work has replaced Newton's as the dominant explanation of gravity in modern science, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is still used as it reasonably (and more simply) describes the force of gravity under many conditions. Similarly, the Law of Faunal Succession developed by William Smith does not explain why organisms follow each other in distinct, predictable ways in the rock layers, but it accurately describes the phenomenon.

Theories, hypotheses , and laws drive scientific progress

Theories, hypotheses , and laws are not simply important components of science, they drive scientific progress. For example, evolutionary biology now stands as a distinct field of science that focuses on the origins and descent of species . Geologists now rely on plate tectonics as a conceptual model and guiding theory when they are studying processes at work in Earth's crust . And physicists refer to atomic theory when they are predicting the existence of subatomic particles yet to be discovered. This does not mean that science is "finished," or that all of the important theories have been discovered already. Like evolution , progress in science happens both gradually and in short, dramatic bursts. Both types of progress are critical for creating a robust knowledge base with data as the foundation and scientific theories giving structure to that knowledge.

Table of Contents

Theories, hypotheses, and laws drive scientific progress

Activate glossary term highlighting to easily identify key terms within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on these terms to view their definitions.

Activate NGSS annotations to easily identify NGSS standards within the module. Once highlighted, you can click on them to view these standards.

Science Notes Posts
Contact Science Notes
Todd Helmenstine Biography
Anne Helmenstine Biography
Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
Periodic Table Wallpapers
Interactive Periodic Table
Periodic Table Posters
How to Grow Crystals
Chemistry Projects
Fire and Flames Projects
Holiday Science
Chemistry Problems With Answers
Physics Problems
Unit Conversion Example Problems
Chemistry Worksheets
Biology Worksheets
Periodic Table Worksheets
Physical Science Worksheets
Science Lab Worksheets
My Amazon Books

Hypothesis Examples

A hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a test. It forms the basis for designing an experiment in the scientific method . A good hypothesis is testable, meaning it makes a prediction you can check with observation or experimentation. Here are different hypothesis examples.

Null Hypothesis Examples

The null hypothesis (H 0 ) is also known as the zero-difference or no-difference hypothesis. It predicts that changing one variable ( independent variable ) will have no effect on the variable being measured ( dependent variable ). Here are null hypothesis examples:

Plant growth is unaffected by temperature.
If you increase temperature, then solubility of salt will increase.
Incidence of skin cancer is unrelated to ultraviolet light exposure.
All brands of light bulb last equally long.
Cats have no preference for the color of cat food.
All daisies have the same number of petals.

Sometimes the null hypothesis shows there is a suspected correlation between two variables. For example, if you think plant growth is affected by temperature, you state the null hypothesis: “Plant growth is not affected by temperature.” Why do you do this, rather than say “If you change temperature, plant growth will be affected”? The answer is because it’s easier applying a statistical test that shows, with a high level of confidence, a null hypothesis is correct or incorrect.

Research Hypothesis Examples

A research hypothesis (H 1 ) is a type of hypothesis used to design an experiment. This type of hypothesis is often written as an if-then statement because it’s easy identifying the independent and dependent variables and seeing how one affects the other. If-then statements explore cause and effect. In other cases, the hypothesis shows a correlation between two variables. Here are some research hypothesis examples:

If you leave the lights on, then it takes longer for people to fall asleep.
If you refrigerate apples, they last longer before going bad.
If you keep the curtains closed, then you need less electricity to heat or cool the house (the electric bill is lower).
If you leave a bucket of water uncovered, then it evaporates more quickly.
Goldfish lose their color if they are not exposed to light.
Workers who take vacations are more productive than those who never take time off.

Is It Okay to Disprove a Hypothesis?

Yes! You may even choose to write your hypothesis in such a way that it can be disproved because it’s easier to prove a statement is wrong than to prove it is right. In other cases, if your prediction is incorrect, that doesn’t mean the science is bad. Revising a hypothesis is common. It demonstrates you learned something you did not know before you conducted the experiment.

Test yourself with a Scientific Method Quiz .

Mellenbergh, G.J. (2008). Chapter 8: Research designs: Testing of research hypotheses. In H.J. Adèr & G.J. Mellenbergh (eds.), Advising on Research Methods: A Consultant’s Companion . Huizen, The Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.
Popper, Karl R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery . Hutchinson & Co. ISBN 3-1614-8410-X.
Schick, Theodore; Vaughn, Lewis (2002). How to think about weird things: critical thinking for a New Age . Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. ISBN 0-7674-2048-9.
Tobi, Hilde; Kampen, Jarl K. (2018). “Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework”. Quality & Quantity . 52 (3): 1209–1225. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0513-8

12 Of The Most Mind-Blowing Scientific Theories Ever Conceived

Share Content on Facebook
Share Content on LinkedIn
Share Content on Flipboard
Share Content on Reddit
Share Content via Email

A scientist conducting an experiment in the lab while wearing protective gear.

As much as we might like to think that our collective knowledge has unlocked most of the mysteries of the universe, we’ve really only got a hold on a tiny fraction of the knowledge required to fully understand it all—and it’s a weak hold at best. But every once in a while a new theory comes along that completely upends everything we thought we knew and sends us down a new path that just might hold the key to all our unanswered questions. These theories often express ideas that are just too abstract or staggering to be accepted by the larger scientific community at the time, but, over the years, as more discoveries are made and certain pieces fall into place, sometimes even the wildest theories have been proven to be right all along.

While none of the hypothesis we present to you here have ever been conclusively verified, they haven’t been totally dismissed yet either. So why not decide for yourself which of these mind-blowing scientific theories you think has the most potential to pan out.

The Ekpyrotic Universe Theory
The Existence of White Holes
The Fermi Paradox
The Simulation Theory
The Universe is a Hologram
Black Holes Can Give Birth to Entirely New Universes
The Many Worlds Theory
The Heat Death of the Universe
Observing Dark Energy is an Act of Murder
The Panspermia Theory
The Singularity
Retroactive Precognition

12. The Ekpyrotic Universe Theory

Providing an alternative to the widely accepted Big Bang theory, the ekpyrotic universe theory suggests that, unlike the Big Bang which supposedly began from a singularity, our universe is actually two universes that smashed into each other. It’s thought that this collision had the effect of “resetting” our universe and, after that point it started expanding just like in the Big Bang. However, instead of infinitely expanding forever, the theory asserts that one day the universe will begin to contract, inevitably leading to what some astrophysicists refer to as the Big Crunch. Then, all the speed and energy involved in the Big Crunch then creates another monumental collision, which results in the universe being reset again so the cycle can repeat itself for all eternity.

http://aminoapps.com/page/science/1227712/ekpyrotic-universe Source: Aminoapps.com

11. The Existence of White Holes

Everyone knows about black holes and how their immense gravity sucks in everything around them, including light. But what about white holes? Theoretically, they’re the exact opposite of a black hole and instead of sucking in matter they spit it out. But scientists have never observed one (likely because they would only exist in extremely hypothetical situations), so it’s unclear if a white hole would function like the tail end of a black hole, a wormhole, or something else entirely. If a white hole really were spewing out matter that was sucked into a black hole, that matter would have to avoid merging with the singularity and somehow be preserved. Currently, we don’t really know exactly what happens to matter that gets sucked into a black hole because all the black holes we’ve observed have an event horizon that prevents us from seeing them directly. The only reason why we can infer the locations of black holes in our universe is because we notice the gravitational effects they have on the objects around them. Which means that if we ever hope to prove the existence of white holes in the future we may need to reconfigure our understanding of the laws of physics—which would certainly be a tall order.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/sci-tech/pulsars-with-black-holes-are-authentic-holy-grail-for-examining-gravity_1509815.html Source: Zeenews.india.com

10. The Fermi Paradox

Originally put forth by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, the Fermi Paradox contests that if the Drake Equation is correct and there are actually millions of intelligent life to be found in our very own Milky Way galaxy, then it makes sense that we should have picked up some sort of signal from at least one of them by now. This argument has been referred to as the Great Silence.

A number of interesting theories have risen over the years that provide an explanation for this Great Silence, among them, perhaps the most interesting and imaginative one suggests that we’re all living out our lives in a Matrix-like computer simulation.

http://www.theplaidzebra.com/the-fermi-paradox/ Source: Theplaidzebra.com

9. The Simulation Theory

This theory supposes that we all might be living in a computer simulation created by an alien race in some distant galaxy. While it may sound like an idea dreamed up by someone who has watched too many sci-fi movies, there are actually prominent scientists and physicists who not only think the Simulation Theory is possible, they’re working on experiments to prove it. In particular, a team of German physicists are trying to create their own programmed simulation of our universe.

Surprisingly, a recent string theory discovery made by theoretical physicist S. James Gate lends further credibility to this theory. Basically, Gate found what is essentially computer code buried deep within the equations we use to describe our universe. And it’s not just any code, it’s an extremely unusual self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code. So it would seem that error correcting 1s and 0s are embedded in the quantum core of our universe. “Wake up Neo. . . The Matrix has you.”

http://www.thatsreallypossible.com/news/1100/evidence-our-universe-is-a-simulation/ Source: Thatsreallypossible.com

8. The Universe is a Hologram

Rather than an elaborate computer simulation, this theory suggests that the universe we see is nothing more than a hologram generated by the universe itself. The idea is that when we look up at the night sky, the distant stars and galaxies we see are really more like an image projected on a wall. This holographic principle could provide the explanation as to why the universe appears flimsy when broken down to the most basic of energy scales. Keep in mind that a holographic image is produced when you cover an object with the light from a laser and then a second laser jumps off the the reflective surface of the first later. Another light source then illuminates the image to produce the holograph. It’s thought that if variations in gravitational waves is caused by different patterns of light, then it would simulate this holographic image creation process. And if this theory is ever proven correct, it would mean we need to alter a lot of our perceptions of what we think we know about the universe.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150427101633.htm Source: Sciencedaily.com

7. Black Holes Can Give Birth to Entirely New Universes

With their mysterious nature and ominous light devouring capacity, it’s not surprising that black holes are often looked upon as the dark reapers of the universe. But this theory suggests that a black hole might actually be the mother of our universe. The idea is, when matter gets pulled into a black hole, the intense gravity compresses it to a single point so dense that it gets spit back out and forms an entirely new universe from that very same matter. So it would follow that a universe with a lot of black holes would essentially be a nursery for baby universes. Though it’s very difficult to pinpoint the exact locations of black holes in our universe, due to them being rendered invisible by their event horizon, some astronomers think the reason for this could be because we’re merely the product of another universe’s black hole—a concept that falls in line with theories that propose we are living in a multiverse.

http://inhabitat.com/this-5d-black-hole-could-change-everything-we-know-about-how-the-universe-works/ Source: Inhabitat.com

6. The Many Worlds Theory

Speaking of the multiverse, the many worlds theory has a slightly different explanation for the existence of countless other universes. Using quantum mechanics, it affirms the objective reality of space but infers that matter cannot be condensed to the point of singularity. So rather than having new universes spontaneously popping out of black holes, the many worlds theory proposes that every time we make a decision, a new universe is born. So basically every time you have to make a choice, whether it’s paper or plastic, coffee or tea, debit or credit, you’re essentially creating a new universe where you made the opposite choice. Each decision you make is then played out in full until it comes time for you to make another decision, by which another universe would branch out from. If this does in fact occur, that would mean there are a seemingly infinite number of universes out there for every decision every person has ever made.

http://www.lifeafterdeathexperiences.com/?p=4582 Source: Lifeafterdeathexperiences.com

5. The Heat Death of the Universe

This theory follows from the second law of thermodynamics and proposes that if the universe was infinite, it should also be infinitely old. In other words, if a star is seen to be one million light years away, it could only be there if the universe was at least one million years old (assuming the speed of light is constant). Therefore, in an infinitely old universe, heat death would suggest that eventually the entire universe will have the same uniform temperature, at which point the universe will remain stagnant. However, this idea would only make sense if the speed at which the universe is expanding has always remained constant. An aspect that other ideas, like cosmic inflation, would be in direct conflict with.

https://preachrr.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/the-universe-is-running-down/ Source: Preachrr.wordpress.com

4. Observing Dark Energy is an Act of Murder

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss once stated that every time we look at dark energy, we’re killing the universe. According to astrophysicists, dark energy makes up an estimated 70 percent of all the energy in the entire universe and holds the secrets to many of the unexplainable peculiarities we see in deep space.

Krauss suggests that the Big Bang was initiated when some unusual high energy with gravity repellent properties decayed into zero-energy; and it was the process of going from a false vacuum to an ordinary vacuum that resulted in the creation of our universe. In quantum mechanics there’s something called the quantum Zeno effect which states that if an unstable object is regularly observed, it will never decay. From this, Krauss’s argument follows that if dark energy is continuously observed, we are keeping it unstable and reducing the universe’s lifespan by forcing it back to that state when it was a false vacuum. But with so many of the mysteries of our universe pointing to dark energy as the key to understanding them, you can bet your bottom dollar that astronomers and physicists aren’t going to stop studying it anytime soon. Let’s just hope those effects are negligible.

http://pics-about-space.com/dark-energy-nasa?p=1 Source: Pics-about-space.com

3. The Panspermia Theory

Panspermia is a Greek word that translates literally as “seeds everywhere.” The panspermia theory states that the “seeds” of life are present throughout the universe and can be propagated through interstellar space or even intergalactic space through natural means. A growing number of people are even subscribing to the hypothesis that life on Earth may have begun from the “seeds” carried to our planet by meteorites and comets originating from the vast reaches of the cosmos.

The recent discovery of various extremophiles (organisms that can survive in extreme environments we previously thought were incapable of supporting life) here on Earth has contributed a great deal of credibility to this theory. It’s now known that life as we know it can survive in environments of extreme heat, extreme cold, intense radiation and lack of oxygen. All conditions an organism might experience while stowing away on an interstellar comet or meteor.

https://www.emaze.com/@AFIQZIRL/PANSCastlElena Source: Emaze.com

2. The Singularity

Ray Kurzweil is a prominent futurist who wholeheartedly believes that in the coming decades humanity will experience what he refers to as a technological singularity by which we will learn to transcend biology itself and all the limitations (including death) associated with it. Kurzweil reasons that truly intelligent civilizations (which he believes humanity to be) are destined to evolve into super-intelligent, possibly machine-based beings whose computational powers grow exponentially.

The idea is that once we hit this so-called “singularity” our technology will be so advanced that we’ll be making revolutionary new breakthroughs on practically a daily basis. We’ll be able to harness the power of our own sun in order to accomplish amazing interstellar feats once only dreamed of in science fiction. In this world, things like cyber brains, dyson spheres and teleportation devices aren’t just possible, they’re practically inevitable.

Of course, this theory has plenty of skeptics, including Noam Chomsky, who believes it to be nothing more than a science fiction enthusiast’s dream. While others simply believe we humans will carelessly destroy ourselves before ever reaching the singularity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07Um_2lJihY Source: YouTube

1. Retroactive Precognition

In 2011, Dr. Daryl J. Bem of Cornell University published a highly contentious paper titled “Feeling the Future: Experimental Evidence for Anomalous Retroactive Influences on Cognition and Affect.” The paper describes a series of experiments conducted by Bem in an effort to discover precognition (knowledge of future events). Working on the assumption that there are, what he refers to as, “anomalous processes of information or energy transfer that are currently unexplained in terms of known physical or biological mechanisms,” the evidence Bem gathered led him to conclude that future events could indeed affect a person’s cognition in the present.

In one study, Bem rounded up 1,000 college students and tested each of their ability to correctly intuit random information. Another study involved a reverse memory test in which participants were asked to categorize random words that they later had to commit to memory. Astonishingly, the results from this test showed that students were more likely to recall words in the present if they made a point of memorizing them in the future.

http://www.stateofmind.ca/precognition-is-it-scientifically-plausible/ Source: Stateofmind.ca

Frequently Asked Questions

In what ways can groundbreaking scientific theories impact our daily lives, what role does technological advancement play in the development of new scientific theories.

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis? A plain-language explainer + examples

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2020

If you’re new to the world of research, or it’s your first time writing a dissertation or thesis, you’re probably noticing that the words “research hypothesis” and “scientific hypothesis” are used quite a bit, and you’re wondering what they mean in a research context .

“Hypothesis” is one of those words that people use loosely, thinking they understand what it means. However, it has a very specific meaning within academic research. So, it’s important to understand the exact meaning before you start hypothesizing.

Research Hypothesis 101

What is a hypothesis ?
What is a research hypothesis (scientific hypothesis)?
Requirements for a research hypothesis
Definition of a research hypothesis
The null hypothesis

What is a hypothesis?

Let’s start with the general definition of a hypothesis (not a research hypothesis or scientific hypothesis), according to the Cambridge Dictionary:

Hypothesis: an idea or explanation for something that is based on known facts but has not yet been proved.

In other words, it’s a statement that provides an explanation for why or how something works, based on facts (or some reasonable assumptions), but that has not yet been specifically tested . For example, a hypothesis might look something like this:

Hypothesis: sleep impacts academic performance.

This statement predicts that academic performance will be influenced by the amount and/or quality of sleep a student engages in – sounds reasonable, right? It’s based on reasonable assumptions , underpinned by what we currently know about sleep and health (from the existing literature). So, loosely speaking, we could call it a hypothesis, at least by the dictionary definition.

But that’s not good enough…

Unfortunately, that’s not quite sophisticated enough to describe a research hypothesis (also sometimes called a scientific hypothesis), and it wouldn’t be acceptable in a dissertation, thesis or research paper . In the world of academic research, a statement needs a few more criteria to constitute a true research hypothesis .

What is a research hypothesis?

A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes – specificity , clarity and testability .

Let’s take a look at these more closely.

Need a helping hand?

Hypothesis Essential #1: Specificity & Clarity

A good research hypothesis needs to be extremely clear and articulate about both what’ s being assessed (who or what variables are involved ) and the expected outcome (for example, a difference between groups, a relationship between variables, etc.).

Let’s stick with our sleepy students example and look at how this statement could be more specific and clear.

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

As you can see, the statement is very specific as it identifies the variables involved (sleep hours and test grades), the parties involved (two groups of students), as well as the predicted relationship type (a positive relationship). There’s no ambiguity or uncertainty about who or what is involved in the statement, and the expected outcome is clear.

Contrast that to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – and you can see the difference. “Sleep” and “academic performance” are both comparatively vague , and there’s no indication of what the expected relationship direction is (more sleep or less sleep). As you can see, specificity and clarity are key.

A good research hypothesis needs to be very clear about what’s being assessed and very specific about the expected outcome.

Hypothesis Essential #2: Testability (Provability)

A statement must be testable to qualify as a research hypothesis. In other words, there needs to be a way to prove (or disprove) the statement. If it’s not testable, it’s not a hypothesis – simple as that.

For example, consider the hypothesis we mentioned earlier:

Hypothesis: Students who sleep at least 8 hours per night will, on average, achieve higher grades in standardised tests than students who sleep less than 8 hours a night.

We could test this statement by undertaking a quantitative study involving two groups of students, one that gets 8 or more hours of sleep per night for a fixed period, and one that gets less. We could then compare the standardised test results for both groups to see if there’s a statistically significant difference.

Again, if you compare this to the original hypothesis we looked at – “Sleep impacts academic performance” – you can see that it would be quite difficult to test that statement, primarily because it isn’t specific enough. How much sleep? By who? What type of academic performance?

So, remember the mantra – if you can’t test it, it’s not a hypothesis 🙂

A good research hypothesis must be testable. In other words, you must able to collect observable data in a scientifically rigorous fashion to test it.

Defining A Research Hypothesis

You’re still with us? Great! Let’s recap and pin down a clear definition of a hypothesis.

A research hypothesis (or scientific hypothesis) is a statement about an expected relationship between variables, or explanation of an occurrence, that is clear, specific and testable.

So, when you write up hypotheses for your dissertation or thesis, make sure that they meet all these criteria. If you do, you’ll not only have rock-solid hypotheses but you’ll also ensure a clear focus for your entire research project.

What about the null hypothesis?

You may have also heard the terms null hypothesis , alternative hypothesis, or H-zero thrown around. At a simple level, the null hypothesis is the counter-proposal to the original hypothesis.

For example, if the hypothesis predicts that there is a relationship between two variables (for example, sleep and academic performance), the null hypothesis would predict that there is no relationship between those variables.

At a more technical level, the null hypothesis proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations and that any differences are due to chance alone.

And there you have it – hypotheses in a nutshell.

If you have any questions, be sure to leave a comment below and we’ll do our best to help you. If you need hands-on help developing and testing your hypotheses, consider our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research journey.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

16 Comments

Very useful information. I benefit more from getting more information in this regard.

Very great insight,educative and informative. Please give meet deep critics on many research data of public international Law like human rights, environment, natural resources, law of the sea etc

In a book I read a distinction is made between null, research, and alternative hypothesis. As far as I understand, alternative and research hypotheses are the same. Can you please elaborate? Best Afshin

This is a self explanatory, easy going site. I will recommend this to my friends and colleagues.

Very good definition. How can I cite your definition in my thesis? Thank you. Is nul hypothesis compulsory in a research?

It’s a counter-proposal to be proven as a rejection

Please what is the difference between alternate hypothesis and research hypothesis?

It is a very good explanation. However, it limits hypotheses to statistically tasteable ideas. What about for qualitative researches or other researches that involve quantitative data that don’t need statistical tests?

In qualitative research, one typically uses propositions, not hypotheses.

could you please elaborate it more

I’ve benefited greatly from these notes, thank you.

This is very helpful

well articulated ideas are presented here, thank you for being reliable sources of information

Excellent. Thanks for being clear and sound about the research methodology and hypothesis (quantitative research)

I have only a simple question regarding the null hypothesis. – Is the null hypothesis (Ho) known as the reversible hypothesis of the alternative hypothesis (H1? – How to test it in academic research?

this is very important note help me much more

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

What Is Research Methodology? Simple Definition (With Examples) - Grad Coach - […] Contrasted to this, a quantitative methodology is typically used when the research aims and objectives are confirmatory in nature. For example,…

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Print Friendly

What Is a Testable Hypothesis?

Scientific Method
Chemical Laws
Periodic Table
Projects & Experiments
Biochemistry
Physical Chemistry
Medical Chemistry
Chemistry In Everyday Life
Famous Chemists
Activities for Kids
Abbreviations & Acronyms
Weather & Climate
Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .

Requirements for a Testable Hypothesis

In order to be considered testable, two criteria must be met:

It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is true.
It must be possible to prove that the hypothesis is false.
It must be possible to reproduce the results of the hypothesis.

Examples of a Testable Hypothesis

All the following hypotheses are testable. It's important, however, to note that while it's possible to say that the hypothesis is correct, much more research would be required to answer the question " why is this hypothesis correct?"

Students who attend class have higher grades than students who skip class. This is testable because it is possible to compare the grades of students who do and do not skip class and then analyze the resulting data. Another person could conduct the same research and come up with the same results.
People exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light have a higher incidence of cancer than the norm. This is testable because it is possible to find a group of people who have been exposed to high levels of ultraviolet light and compare their cancer rates to the average.
If you put people in a dark room, then they will be unable to tell when an infrared light turns on. This hypothesis is testable because it is possible to put a group of people into a dark room, turn on an infrared light, and ask the people in the room whether or not an infrared light has been turned on.

Examples of a Hypothesis Not Written in a Testable Form

It doesn't matter whether or not you skip class. This hypothesis can't be tested because it doesn't make any actual claim regarding the outcome of skipping class. "It doesn't matter" doesn't have any specific meaning, so it can't be tested.
Ultraviolet light could cause cancer. The word "could" makes a hypothesis extremely difficult to test because it is very vague. There "could," for example, be UFOs watching us at every moment, even though it's impossible to prove that they are there!
Goldfish make better pets than guinea pigs. This is not a hypothesis; it's a matter of opinion. There is no agreed-upon definition of what a "better" pet is, so while it is possible to argue the point, there is no way to prove it.

How to Propose a Testable Hypothesis

Now that you know what a testable hypothesis is, here are tips for proposing one.

Try to write the hypothesis as an if-then statement. If you take an action, then a certain outcome is expected.
Identify the independent and dependent variable in the hypothesis. The independent variable is what you are controlling or changing. You measure the effect this has on the dependent variable.
Write the hypothesis in such a way that you can prove or disprove it. For example, a person has skin cancer, you can't prove they got it from being out in the sun. However, you can demonstrate a relationship between exposure to ultraviolet light and increased risk of skin cancer.
Make sure you are proposing a hypothesis you can test with reproducible results. If your face breaks out, you can't prove the breakout was caused by the french fries you had for dinner last night. However, you can measure whether or not eating french fries is associated with breaking out. It's a matter of gathering enough data to be able to reproduce results and draw a conclusion.
What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)
How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
Theory Definition in Science
Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
Six Steps of the Scientific Method
What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
Scientific Method Flow Chart
Null Hypothesis Examples
What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
Scientific Hypothesis Examples

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

Epidemic vs. Pandemic
Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries. Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', 'virus' vs. 'bacteria', your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, is it 'jail' or 'prison', 'deduction' vs. 'induction' vs. 'abduction', grammar & usage, primary and caucus: what is the difference, words commonly mispronounced, merriam-webster’s great big list of words you love to hate, more commonly misspelled words, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, 12 words for signs of spring, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 13 unusually long english words, 12 star wars words, a great big list of bread words.

IMAGES

Research Hypothesis: Definition, Types, Examples and Quick Tips (2022)
Scientific hypothesis
Scientific Hypothesis
How to Write a Hypothesis
How to Write a Hypothesis in 12 Steps 2024
What is an Hypothesis

VIDEO

Proportion Hypothesis Testing, example 2
Probability and Statistics
Abiogenesis: What Is the Probability Life Arose from Inorganic Chemicals?
Scientific hypothesis
Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science and Falsifiability #philosophy #quote
Famous Scientists And Their Inventions

COMMENTS

Three Famous Hypotheses and How They Were Tested
Although Hasler's blindfold hypothesis was disproven, others have fared better. Today, we're looking at three of the best-known experiments in history — and the hypotheses they tested. Contents. Ivan Pavlov and His Dogs (1903-1935) Isaac Newton's Radiant Prisms (1665) Robert Paine's Revealing Starfish (1963-1969)
Scientific hypothesis
The Royal Society - On the scope of scientific hypotheses (Apr. 24, 2024) scientific hypothesis, an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of phenomena observed in the natural world. The two primary features of a scientific hypothesis are falsifiability and testability, which are reflected in an "If ...
Top 10 revolutionary scientific theories
And opened scientists' eyes to the whole history of the expanding universe. And provided science fiction writers with black holes. 3. Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner ...
What is a scientific hypothesis?
A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method. Many describe it as an "educated guess ...
Scientific Hypotheses: Writing, Promoting, and Predicting Implications
The essence of a great hypothesis is a story behind the scientific facts and evidence-based data. ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS. The authors of hypotheses substantiate their arguments by referring to and discerning rational points from published articles that might be overlooked by others. Their arguments may contradict the established theories and ...
Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws
A scientific hypothesis is an inferred explanation of an observation or research finding; while more exploratory in nature than a theory, it is based on existing scientific knowledge. A scientific law is an expression of a mathematical or descriptive relationship observed in nature.
Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a ...
Testing scientific ideas
Testing hypotheses and theories is at the core of the process of science.Any aspect of the natural world could be explained in many different ways. It is the job of science to collect all those plausible explanations and to use scientific testing to filter through them, retaining ideas that are supported by the evidence and discarding the others. You can think of scientific testing as ...
Hypothesis Examples
A hypothesis proposes a relationship between the independent and dependent variable. A hypothesis is a prediction of the outcome of a test. It forms the basis for designing an experiment in the scientific method.A good hypothesis is testable, meaning it makes a prediction you can check with observation or experimentation.
The scientific method (article)
The scientific method. At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step: Make an observation. Ask a question. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
Hypotheses about the origins of life (article)
The Earth formed roughly 4.5. ‍. billion years ago, and life probably began between 3.5. ‍. and 3.9. ‍. billion years ago. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that life arose gradually from inorganic molecules, with "building blocks" like amino acids forming first and then combining to make complex polymers.
12 Of The Most Mind-Blowing Scientific Theories Ever Conceived
Scientific theories have helped us understand our ever-changing planet. Prapass Pulsub / Getty Images. As much as we might like to think that our collective knowledge has unlocked most of the mysteries of the universe, we've really only got a hold on a tiny fraction of the knowledge required to fully understand it all—and it's a weak hold at best. But every once in a while a new theory ...
What Is A Research (Scientific) Hypothesis?
A research hypothesis (also called a scientific hypothesis) is a statement about the expected outcome of a study (for example, a dissertation or thesis). To constitute a quality hypothesis, the statement needs to have three attributes - specificity, clarity and testability. Let's take a look at these more closely.
Scientific Hypothesis Examples
Scientific Hypothesis Examples . Hypothesis: All forks have three tines. This would be disproven if you find any fork with a different number of tines. Hypothesis: There is no relationship between smoking and lung cancer.While it is difficult to establish cause and effect in health issues, you can apply statistics to data to discredit or support this hypothesis.
Hypothesis: Definition, Examples, and Types
A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process. Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test ...
1. The Practice of Science: An Introduction to Research Methods
More than one Scientific Method. The typical presentation of the Scientific Method (Figure 3) suggests that scientific research follows a linear path, proceeding from a question through observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and finally producing results and a conclusion. However, scientific research does not always proceed linearly. For example, prior to the mid 1800s, a popular ...
How to Write a Strong Hypothesis
Developing a hypothesis (with example) Step 1. Ask a question. Writing a hypothesis begins with a research question that you want to answer. The question should be focused, specific, and researchable within the constraints of your project. Example: Research question.
Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method
Theory vs. Hypothesis: Basics of the Scientific Method. Written by MasterClass. Last updated: Jun 7, 2021 • 2 min read. Though you may hear the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" used interchangeably, these two scientific terms have drastically different meanings in the world of science.
What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
Updated on January 12, 2019. A hypothesis is a tentative answer to a scientific question. A testable hypothesis is a hypothesis that can be proved or disproved as a result of testing, data collection, or experience. Only testable hypotheses can be used to conceive and perform an experiment using the scientific method .
Why Is 'Theory' Such A Confusing Word? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture
A scientific hypothesis is an idea not yet empirically tested and, hence, still not vetted by the scientific community. ... Much popular confusion could be avoided if the word theory would be ...
1.3: Scientific Theories
Scientific Theories. With repeated testing, some hypotheses may eventually become scientific theories. Keep in mind, a hypothesis is a possible answer to a scientific question. A scientific theory is a broad explanation for events that is widely accepted as true. To become a theory, a hypothesis must be tested over and over again, and it must be supported by a great deal of evidence.
10 Most Famous Scientific Theories That Were Later Debunked
Today's post on our Science Blog will discuss ten of the most popular and influential scientific discoveries that were based on dubious data, ... There is a big difference between hypothesis and scientific theory. Forkpah Pewee says. January 14, 2013 at 11:54 am. This is very wonderful. Science in its nature of existence is a circulating ...
Hypothesis vs. Theory: The Difference Explained
A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.