For researchers, whether beginners such as students or experienced\nones like lecturers, professors, and other investigators, the term\nhypothesis is no longer unfamiliar. This word, often mispronounced as\n\u2018hipotesa\u2019, is indeed a daily staple. It is frequently found in drafts\nof journal articles and thesis proposals. But what exactly is a\nhypothesis? Can all of a researcher\u2019s initial assumptions be validated\nas hypotheses?<\/p>\n
According to the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI), a hypothesis is a\nbasic assumption, something considered true for the sake of argument or\nexpressing an opinion (theory, proposition, etc.) even though its truth\nstill needs to be proven. According to Prof.\u00a0Dr.\u00a0Sugiyono, a hypothesis\nis a temporary answer or assumption to the formulation of a research\nproblem. Meanwhile, Prof.\u00a0Dr.\u00a0Mahsun explains that a hypothesis is a\ntemporary answer to a problem to be investigated.<\/p>\n
Based on the above definitions, we can draw the common thread that a\nhypothesis is a temporary answer to a problem. So, is it true that all\ntemporary assumptions can be called hypotheses? The answer is no.\nProf.\u00a0Dr.\u00a0Mahsun further explains several properties that a hypothesis\nmust have: it must be testable and also reasonable.<\/p>\n
To facilitate understanding of hypotheses, Neil A. Campbell provides\nan interesting example from everyday life. In his Biology book series\n(eighth edition, volume 1 in the Indonesian version), Campbell gives the\nexample of a torch that goes out at a campsite. This case of a dead\ntorch is the simplest example for understanding the concept of a\nhypothesis.<\/p>\n
When facing a problem, we begin with an observation. That observation\nwill lead us to one or more questions. When the torch we are using\nsuddenly goes out, we will naturally observe the lighting device, then\nask, \u2018Why did this torch suddenly go out?\u2019, \u2018What is wrong with this\ntorch?\u2019, and so on.<\/p>\n
From these questions, basic assumptions emerge that we propose to\nsolve the cause of the torch going out. These assumptions are what are\ncalled hypotheses. For example, Campbell outlines two hypotheses for\nthis problem. The first hypothesis is that the torch went out because\nthe batteries are dead; the second hypothesis is that the torch went out\nbecause the bulb is broken. Both hypotheses lead to an assumption:\nreplacing the batteries or the bulb will fix the torch as before.<\/p>\n
After proposing hypotheses, to prove the above assumption, there is\nno other way but to test them directly. We will never know the cause of\nthe torch going out if we do not test the two hypotheses above. We try\nthem one by one, starting with replacing the torch batteries, which\nturns out to change nothing. Next, we try replacing the torch bulb.\nAfter replacement, the torch finally lights up again.<\/p>\n
The torch analogy above provides a simple illustration of the concept\nof a hypothesis itself. Without realising it, in everyday life we\nactually hypothesise about many things. Starting from observing a\nproblem, then proposing a hypothesis, followed by testing the\nhypothesis, and finally proving the hypothesis itself.<\/p>\n
However, as stated above, not all initial assumptions can be called\nhypotheses. Let us imagine a third assumption about the torch going out.\nSuppose the torch suddenly goes out in the campsite, and we arbitrarily\nassume that some mystical force, an invisible being, caused the torch to\ngo out. Besides being untestable, this assumption is also unreasonable.\nTherefore, it is not valid to call it a hypothesis.<\/p>\n
According to Karl Popper, besides being testable, a hypothesis must\nalso be falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). This concept is called\nthe Falsifiability of Hypotheses. As stated in The Logic of Scientific\nDiscovery, page 18: \u2018But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical\nor scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience; it\nmust be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by\nexperience.\u2019<\/p>\n
Consider the comparison table and the quote above, and let us relate\nthem to the three hypotheses about the torch. The first and second\nhypotheses (dead batteries and a broken bulb) can be tested and can also\nbe refuted or proven wrong. That is, after testing by replacing the\nbatteries and the bulb, it can be determined that one of the assumptions\nis wrong, namely that the torch batteries were dead. Meanwhile, the\nthird assumption cannot be called a hypothesis, because the existence of\nsupernatural beings cannot be tested, cannot be proven true, and also\ncannot be proven false.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/verification-vs-falsification-of-hypotheses-1787197911", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }