Verification vs Falsification of Hypotheses
For researchers, whether beginners such as students or experienced ones like lecturers, professors, and other investigators, the term hypothesis is no longer unfamiliar. This word, often mispronounced as ‘hipotesa’, is indeed a daily staple. It is frequently found in drafts of journal articles and thesis proposals. But what exactly is a hypothesis? Can all of a researcher’s initial assumptions be validated as hypotheses?
According to the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI), a hypothesis is a basic assumption, something considered true for the sake of argument or expressing an opinion (theory, proposition, etc.) even though its truth still needs to be proven. According to Prof. Dr. Sugiyono, a hypothesis is a temporary answer or assumption to the formulation of a research problem. Meanwhile, Prof. Dr. Mahsun explains that a hypothesis is a temporary answer to a problem to be investigated.
Based on the above definitions, we can draw the common thread that a hypothesis is a temporary answer to a problem. So, is it true that all temporary assumptions can be called hypotheses? The answer is no. Prof. Dr. Mahsun further explains several properties that a hypothesis must have: it must be testable and also reasonable.
To facilitate understanding of hypotheses, Neil A. Campbell provides an interesting example from everyday life. In his Biology book series (eighth edition, volume 1 in the Indonesian version), Campbell gives the example of a torch that goes out at a campsite. This case of a dead torch is the simplest example for understanding the concept of a hypothesis.
When facing a problem, we begin with an observation. That observation will lead us to one or more questions. When the torch we are using suddenly goes out, we will naturally observe the lighting device, then ask, ‘Why did this torch suddenly go out?’, ‘What is wrong with this torch?’, and so on.
From these questions, basic assumptions emerge that we propose to solve the cause of the torch going out. These assumptions are what are called hypotheses. For example, Campbell outlines two hypotheses for this problem. The first hypothesis is that the torch went out because the batteries are dead; the second hypothesis is that the torch went out because the bulb is broken. Both hypotheses lead to an assumption: replacing the batteries or the bulb will fix the torch as before.
After proposing hypotheses, to prove the above assumption, there is no other way but to test them directly. We will never know the cause of the torch going out if we do not test the two hypotheses above. We try them one by one, starting with replacing the torch batteries, which turns out to change nothing. Next, we try replacing the torch bulb. After replacement, the torch finally lights up again.
The torch analogy above provides a simple illustration of the concept of a hypothesis itself. Without realising it, in everyday life we actually hypothesise about many things. Starting from observing a problem, then proposing a hypothesis, followed by testing the hypothesis, and finally proving the hypothesis itself.
However, as stated above, not all initial assumptions can be called hypotheses. Let us imagine a third assumption about the torch going out. Suppose the torch suddenly goes out in the campsite, and we arbitrarily assume that some mystical force, an invisible being, caused the torch to go out. Besides being untestable, this assumption is also unreasonable. Therefore, it is not valid to call it a hypothesis.
According to Karl Popper, besides being testable, a hypothesis must also be falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). This concept is called the Falsifiability of Hypotheses. As stated in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, page 18: ‘But I shall certainly admit a system as empirical or scientific only if it is capable of being tested by experience; it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience.’
Consider the comparison table and the quote above, and let us relate them to the three hypotheses about the torch. The first and second hypotheses (dead batteries and a broken bulb) can be tested and can also be refuted or proven wrong. That is, after testing by replacing the batteries and the bulb, it can be determined that one of the assumptions is wrong, namely that the torch batteries were dead. Meanwhile, the third assumption cannot be called a hypothesis, because the existence of supernatural beings cannot be tested, cannot be proven true, and also cannot be proven false.