The Scientific Method is of course the process by which a scientist proceeds from hypothesis to conclusion through carefully applied tests against a “control” in order to discover a new fact. It is the core process through which scientific knowledge is gained and is at the root of what caused a revolution in the way we see the world since the sixteenth century. Prior to this time, it was believed that all that is knowable can be discovered through the exercise of reason alone.
Every step in the scientific method (except one!) is acheived through a well worn process and comes from well known sources. The data is gathered through well established tests, statistical analyses of correlation provide the level of confidence in whether a correlation can be acheived, and the conclusion rests upon the solid statistical principles. Although there is disagreement in the validity of the conclusion based on various conditions, the method itself is never questioned.
The one step still shrouded in mystery is the first one - the hypothesis. When reading on the Scientific Method the hypothesis is simply identified as the idea of the scientist on which the testing is to take place. But where does the hypothesis come from? Hypotheses are not generated by the scientific method; they are the necessary starting points. Is there nothing “scientific” about the hypothesis, and if not, what does science ultimately rest on? Does it reas in the creativity of the human mind? A hypothesis can be false and still show a statistically significant correlation through testing. It takes a creative person to think of an idea before it can be tested.
So where does the hypothesis come from? Perhaps this is the area for philosophy to inquire?
This question will be very familiar to those who read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Scientific Hypothesis are philosophical questions that we have the ability to answer through testing and experimentation. Yes they are philosophical and are originated through logical inference.
I suppose they could but I guess that would mean you got lucky with thinking up something out of the thin air with no logic to your reason would be lucky to have it be capable of having it be tested
Scientific hypothesis is a body of questions, infinitely large, with only a subset of a fraction pertaining to our particular world. A scientist then is a skilled ‘questioner’ of reality, he/she is able to minimize this pool and with some cleverness, by asking the right questions. Doubt and skepticism as well as logic and ration serve as fuel for a hypothesis.
The hypothesis comes from a fundamental a priori, a capacity to semi-consciously perceive elements of our environment and incorporate ideas about these semi-conscious percepts into a formalized inquiry.
The hypothesis is only the beginning of a creative process, if it then becomes the end then it dies. There are no hypothesis that stand the test of time, only theories and not stringy ones, or fanciful ideas. Regulation is achieved by oddly authority and an appeal to the peer and an appeal to the majority. This is not philosophy but it is guided by the philosophy of science.