Reflection on “A Brief History of the Hypothesis”

The article “A Brief History of the Hypothesis” is a unique scholarly article that was published in Cell, a prominent scientific journal. This article differs from the usual topic discussed in this journal and focuses on how philosophy laid a foundation for the scientific method, specifically the hypothesis. In the preliminary sections of the article, the authors (Glass and Hall 2008), discuss the fundamental differences between a model and a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea or statement that is built to be subjected to falsification whereas a model is derived from data and is, in a sense, designed to be ‘verified’ by repeated experimentation. I was ecstatic to hear this distinction made. In my experience, science has been about answering questions by a method that often requires models to serve as a framework which is built upon by further experimentation.

When I think back to my years as a student in high school I realize that this was not the concept that was taught by many of the instructors. I remember writing reflections or discussing experiments and the rubric always included: “explain the meaning of the hypothesis thoroughly and accurately.” This was incredibly frustrating because often times an experiment does not necessarily need or have a conventional hypothesis; it may simply answer a question about a particular biological system or chemical reaction. This interrogative approach is often times the way that science is conducted today. Past experiences and experiments lead to new questions to try and answer.

Though Glass and Hall published this article in 2008 they present the arguments famous philosophers who have been debating the very issue for centuries. Essentially the debate centers on whether to use a deductive method of reasoning (the hypothesis) or an inductive method of reasoning (the model). Francis Bacon discredits the use of solely deductive reasoning because it confines the research to a faulty method of reasoning because the premise is predicted before the observations are made.

While Bacon and others favored a truly inductive approach, other philosophers such as David Hume and Karl Popper argued that one cannot predict future events based on the results of previous observation. To some degree this is true because there is now way to affirm that the laws of nature will always hold, but these philosophers fail to recognize the concept of probability and repeatability which serve as essential tools of data analysis. For if one could not base future decisions on actions of the past there would be no logic to perform any action over another which is truly illogical. Francis Bacon presented a solution called “true induction” where one would eliminate bias by using a bottom up approach that “confirms” or fails to disprove the proposed model.

I view this method as a combination of inductive and deductive processes that uses inductive reasoning to produce a model. This is then tested for “inductive power” (Glass and Hall 2008) by a modified use of deduction that promotes the testing of the model by a deductive approach. Glass and Hall discuss this type of application in modern medicine. Clinical trials serve as a method to accurately gain enough experience of a certain outcome so that the treatment method now applied as model can be used on other patients with the same condition. Even in this case a formal hypothesis is not necessarily needed. It would seem more logical to conduct the research by asking a series of questions that originate from prior knowledge and previous models. Thus, there are several methods by which to approach a specific problem but the most effective method seems to be using previous knowledge about the laws of nature to generate good questions that relate to the outcome of future experiments or events.

Works Cited

Glass, D., & Hall, N. (2008). A Brief History of the Hypothesis. Cell , 378-381.