Week 11/12: Ch. 12 Question 3

What I found the most interesting this week is the section on Evaluating Scientific Hypotheses. The criteria for evaluating hypotheses include the use of precise language and providing a testable explanation and relevance to the problem that is studied because we can’t just include everything we observe. In other words, there needs to be a focus in the study. The criteria also include consistency, meaning that the scientific explanations should be consistent with the “facts” in that field. An example given in the book is the release of methane in the ocean as a cause of global warming. This is considered a good hypothesis because it corresponds to the known and accepted idea that global warming is a result of both mankind and physical, natural changes on earth. Another part of the criteria is simplicity which in its name explains what it really is. Scientists basically choose the simpler hypothesis when there are rival hypotheses. Furthermore, the criteria also include testability and falsifiability. Studies should be testable in that they can be replicated by other scientists because science is a continuous, changing process where people find more discoveries. An explanation must also be falsified. An example that makes falsifying an explanation easier is the one given in the book where they’ve hypothesized that all swans are white, when really there are also black swans. Lastly, a good hypothesis should also have a predictive power, meaning that this explanation can be used to predict or explain similar events.