science experiments with hypothesis and conclusion

Get Your ALL ACCESS Shop Pass here →

Scientific Method For Kids With Examples

Kids have questions about the world around them every day, and there is so much to learn through experimentation with simple materials. You can begin using the scientific method with elementary kids. Below we’ll share with you how and when to introduce the scientific method, the steps of the scientific method, and some easy scientific method experiments. There are so many great ways to enjoy science projects with kids!

What Is The Scientific Method?

The scientific method is a process or method of research. A problem is identified, information about the problem is gathered, a hypothesis or question is formulated from the information, and the hypothesis is put to the test with an experiment to prove or disprove its validity.

Sounds heavy… What in the world does that mean?!? It means you don’t need to try and solve the world’s biggest science questions! The scientific method is all about studying and learning things right around you.

As children develop practices that involve creating, gathering data evaluating, analyzing, and communicating, they can apply these critical thinking skills to any situation.

Note: The use of the best Science and Engineering Practices is also relevant to the topic of using the scientific method. Read more here and see if it fits your science planning needs.

Can Young Kids Use the Scientific Method?

Kids are great scientists at any age, and can use the scientific method in context to what they are learning. It can be adapted for any age!

The scientific method is a valuable tool for introducing kids to a logical way to solve scientific problems. Scientists use the scientific method to study, learn, and come up with an answer!

The scientific method is a process that helps double-check that answers are correct and the correct results are obtained through careful planning. Sometimes the guesses and questions change as you run your experiments.

Kids can use the scientific method too on questions that are relevant to them!

Let’s break the scientific method for kids down into six parts, and you can quickly see how each can be incorporated into your next science experiment.

What Are The Steps In The Scientific Method?

• Make initial observations.
• Come up with a question of interest that is based on the observations.
• Develop a hypothesis or prediction to go along with the question.
• Experiment and test.
• Gather and record results of tests and experiments and draw conclusions.
• Share and discuss results.

Whoa… Wait A  Minute! That sounds like a lot for a young kid!

You are correct. Depending on your kid’s abilities, following all the scientific method steps precisely will not go well. Someone will get frustrated, bored, and turned off by just how cool science can be. We do not want that to happen!

Using The Scientific Method For Preschool and Kindergarten

Use the scientific method steps as a guideline in the back of your mind. You can cover most of the steps by talking with your kids about…

• What do they think will happen?
• What is happening ?
• What happened compared to what they thought would happen ?

No writing is required! It’s also best to pick pretty straightforward ideas that aren’t overly involved or complicated to set up and test. Kids always have burning questions and “what ifs.”

See if you can tackle their next “what if” using the scientific method by listening carefully to their conversations. You can even have them keep a journal with their “what if” questions for your next science time.

Learn more about Science Activities For Preschoolers and Kindergarten Science Experiments .

Now on to how to apply the scientific method for elementary kiddos and beyond.

Scientific Method Steps In Action

Learn more about the steps of the scientific method below, which are great for science at home with your kids or in the classroom! We have also included some simple scientific method experiments for you to enjoy.

Ice Science Experiments are perfect for this! Try these 3 today !

STEP 1: Make Observations

Tons of everyday activities would make for cool science experiments using the scientific method. Listen to what your kids talk about and see happening. My son noticed that ice melted pretty fast in his water.

Observation is simply noticing what’s happening through our senses or with tools like a magnifying glass. Observation is used to collect and record data, enabling scientists to construct and test hypotheses and theories.

Learn more about observations in science.

STEP 2: Come Up With A Question 

Your kids’ observations should lead to some sort of question. For my son and his ice observations, he came up with questions. Does ice melt faster in different liquids? His curiosity about what happens to the ice in liquids is a simple science experiment perfect for using the scientific method.

Next! Do some research and come up with ideas!

STEP 3: Develop A Prediction or Hypothesis

You have made your observations, you have your question, and now you need to make a prediction about what you think will happen.

A prediction is a guess at what might happen in an experiment based on observation or other information.

A hypothesis is not simply a guess! It’s a statement of what you believe will happen based on the information you have gathered.

My son hypothesizes that ice will melt faster in juice than in water.

STEP 4: Conduct An Experiment

We made a prediction that ice will melt faster in juice than it will in water, and now we have to test our hypothesis. We set up an experiment with a glass of juice, a glass of water, and an ice cube for each.

For the best experiments, only one thing should change! All the things that can be changed in a science experiment are called variables. There are three types of variables; independent, dependent, and controlled.

The independent variable is the one that is changed in the experiment and will affect the dependent variable. Here we will use different types of liquids to melt our ice cube in.

The dependent variable is the factor that is observed or measured in the experiment. This will be the melting of the ice cubes. Set up a stopwatch or set a time limit to observe the changes!

The controlled variable stays constant in the experiment. The liquids should be roughly the same temperature (as close as possible) for our ice melting experiment and measured to the same amount. So we left them out to come to room temperature. They could also be tested right out of the fridge!

You can find simple science experiments here with dependent and controlled variables.

STEP 5: Record Results and Draw Conclusions

Make sure to record what is happening as well as the results—note changes at specific time intervals or after one set time interval.

For example…

• Record when each ice cube is completely melted.
• Add drawings if you wish of the setup up and the end results.
• Was your prediction accurate? If it was inaccurate, record why.
• Write out a final conclusion to your experiment.

STEP 6: Communicate Your Results

This is the opportunity to talk about your hypothesis, experiment, results, and conclusion!

ALTERNATIVE IDEAS: Switch out an ice cube for a lollipop or change the liquids using vinegar and cooking oil.

Now you have gone through the steps of the scientific method, read on for more fun scientific method experiments to try!

Free printable scientific method worksheets!

Fun Scientific Method Experiments

Sink or float experiment.

A Sink or Float experiment is great for practicing the steps of the scientific method with younger kids.

Grab this FREE printable sink or float experiment

Here are a few of our favorite scientific method experiments, which are great for elementary-age kids . Of course, you can find tons more awesome and doable science projects for kids here!

Magic Milk Experiment

Start with demonstrating this delightful magic milk experiment. Then get kids to apply the steps of the scientific method by coming up with a question to investigate. What happens when you change the type of milk used?

What Dissolves In Water

Investigate  what solids dissolve in water  and what do not. Here’s a super fun science experiment for kids that’s very easy to set up! Learn about solutions, solutes, and solvents through experimenting with water and common kitchen ingredients.

Apple Browning Experiment

Investigate how to keep apples from turning brown with this apple oxidation experiment . What can you add to cut apples to stop or slow the oxidation process?

Freezing Water Experiment

Will it freeze? What happens to the freezing point of water when you add salt?

Viscosity Experiment

Learn about the viscosity of fluids with a simple  viscosity experiment . Grab some marbles and add them to different household liquids to find out which one will fall to the bottom first. 

Seed Germination Experiment

Set up a simple seed germination experiment .

Catapult Experiment

Make a simple popsicle stick catapult and use one of our experiment ideas to investigate from rubber band tension to changes in launch angle and more. How far can you fling your objects? Take measurements and find out.

Floating Orange

Investigate whether an orange floats or sinks in water, and what happens if you use different types of oranges. Learn about buoyancy and density with a simple ingredient from the kitchen, an orange.

Bread Mold Experiment

Grow mold on bread for science, and investigate how factors such as moisture, temperature, and air affect mold growth. 

Eggshell Strength Experiment

Test how strong an egg is with this eggshell strength experiment . Grab some eggs, and find out how much weight an egg can support.

Free Printable Science Fair Starter Guide

Are you looking to plan a science fair project, make a science fair board, or want an easy guide to set up science experiments?

Learn more about prepping for a science fair and grab this free printable science fair project pack here!

If you want a variety of science fair experiments with instructions, make sure to pick up a copy of our Science Project Pack in the shop.

Bonus STEM Projects For Kids

STEM activities include science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. As well as our kids science experiments, we have lots of fun STEM activities for you to try. Check out these STEM ideas below…

• Building Activities
• Engineering Projects For Kids
• What Is Engineering For Kids?
• Coding Activities For Kids
• STEM Worksheets
• Top 10 STEM Challenges For Kids

Printable Science Projects Pack

If you’re looking to grab all of our printable science projects in one convenient place plus exclusive worksheets and bonuses like a STEAM Project pack, our Science Project Pack is what you need! Over 300+ Pages!

• 90+ classic science activities  with journal pages, supply lists, set up and process, and science information.  NEW! Activity-specific observation pages!
• Best science practices posters  and our original science method process folders for extra alternatives!
• Be a Collector activities pack  introduces kids to the world of making collections through the eyes of a scientist. What will they collect first?
• Know the Words Science vocabulary pack  includes flashcards, crosswords, and word searches that illuminate keywords in the experiments!
• My science journal writing prompts  explore what it means to be a scientist!!
• Bonus STEAM Project Pack:  Art meets science with doable projects!
• Bonus Quick Grab Packs for Biology, Earth Science, Chemistry, and Physics

19 Comments

A great post and sure to help extend children’s thinking! I would like to download the 6 steps but the blue download button doesn’t seem to be working for me.

Thank you! All fixed. You should be able to download now!

• Pingback: Popsicle Stick Catapult Ideas for Kids STEM Activity
• Pingback: Magical Dancing Corn Thanksgiving Science Experiment
• Pingback: Shadow Science Physics Activity With Animal Puppets (FREE Printable)
• Pingback: Books to inspire your young scientists! – Mom Read It
• Pingback: Seed Jar Science Experiment for Spring STEM Activities with Kids
• Pingback: Magic Milk Classic Science Experiment Kids Science
• Pingback: Earth Day Science Activity and Homemade Liquid Density Lava Lamp
• Pingback: Dissolving Candy Hearts Science Experiment for Valentine's Day
• Pingback: Seashells With Vinegar Ocean Experiment | Little Bins for Little Hands
• Pingback: DIY Snow Globe For Kids | Little Bins for Little Hands
• Pingback: Science Project Ideas with Usable Tips From a Teacher!
• Pingback: Drops Of Water On A Penny | Little Bins for Little Hands
• Pingback: The BEST Very Simple Science Experiments for Kids to Try Anywhere

it is so great, thanks a lot.

This helped for a science project.Thanks so much.

Comments are closed.

~ Projects to Try Now! ~

The Scientific Method by Science Made Simple

Understanding and using the scientific method.

The Scientific Method is a process used to design and perform experiments. It's important to minimize experimental errors and bias, and increase confidence in the accuracy of your results.

In the previous sections, we talked about how to pick a good topic and specific question to investigate. Now we will discuss how to carry out your investigation.

Steps of the Scientific Method

• Observation/Research
• Experimentation

Now that you have settled on the question you want to ask, it's time to use the Scientific Method to design an experiment to answer that question.

If your experiment isn't designed well, you may not get the correct answer. You may not even get any definitive answer at all!

The Scientific Method is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to conclusions about the world around them. The Scientific Method helps to organize thoughts and procedures so that scientists can be confident in the answers they find.

OBSERVATION is first step, so that you know how you want to go about your research.

HYPOTHESIS is the answer you think you'll find.

PREDICTION is your specific belief about the scientific idea: If my hypothesis is true, then I predict we will discover this.

EXPERIMENT is the tool that you invent to answer the question, and

CONCLUSION is the answer that the experiment gives.

Don't worry, it isn't that complicated. Let's take a closer look at each one of these steps. Then you can understand the tools scientists use for their science experiments, and use them for your own.

OBSERVATION

This step could also be called "research." It is the first stage in understanding the problem.

After you decide on topic, and narrow it down to a specific question, you will need to research everything that you can find about it. You can collect information from your own experiences, books, the internet, or even smaller "unofficial" experiments.

Let's continue the example of a science fair idea about tomatoes in the garden. You like to garden, and notice that some tomatoes are bigger than others and wonder why.

Because of this personal experience and an interest in the problem, you decide to learn more about what makes plants grow.

For this stage of the Scientific Method, it's important to use as many sources as you can find. The more information you have on your science fair topic, the better the design of your experiment is going to be, and the better your science fair project is going to be overall.

Also try to get information from your teachers or librarians, or professionals who know something about your science fair project. They can help to guide you to a solid experimental setup.

The next stage of the Scientific Method is known as the "hypothesis." This word basically means "a possible solution to a problem, based on knowledge and research."

The hypothesis is a simple statement that defines what you think the outcome of your experiment will be.

All of the first stage of the Scientific Method -- the observation, or research stage -- is designed to help you express a problem in a single question ("Does the amount of sunlight in a garden affect tomato size?") and propose an answer to the question based on what you know. The experiment that you will design is done to test the hypothesis.

Using the example of the tomato experiment, here is an example of a hypothesis:

TOPIC: "Does the amount of sunlight a tomato plant receives affect the size of the tomatoes?"

HYPOTHESIS: "I believe that the more sunlight a tomato plant receives, the larger the tomatoes will grow.

This hypothesis is based on:

(1) Tomato plants need sunshine to make food through photosynthesis, and logically, more sun means more food, and;

(2) Through informal, exploratory observations of plants in a garden, those with more sunlight appear to grow bigger.

The hypothesis is your general statement of how you think the scientific phenomenon in question works.

Your prediction lets you get specific -- how will you demonstrate that your hypothesis is true? The experiment that you will design is done to test the prediction.

An important thing to remember during this stage of the scientific method is that once you develop a hypothesis and a prediction, you shouldn't change it, even if the results of your experiment show that you were wrong.

An incorrect prediction does NOT mean that you "failed." It just means that the experiment brought some new facts to light that maybe you hadn't thought about before.

Continuing our tomato plant example, a good prediction would be: Increasing the amount of sunlight tomato plants in my experiment receive will cause an increase in their size compared to identical plants that received the same care but less light.

This is the part of the scientific method that tests your hypothesis. An experiment is a tool that you design to find out if your ideas about your topic are right or wrong.

It is absolutely necessary to design a science fair experiment that will accurately test your hypothesis. The experiment is the most important part of the scientific method. It's the logical process that lets scientists learn about the world.

On the next page, we'll discuss the ways that you can go about designing a science fair experiment idea.

The final step in the scientific method is the conclusion. This is a summary of the experiment's results, and how those results match up to your hypothesis.

You have two options for your conclusions: based on your results, either:

(1) YOU CAN REJECT the hypothesis, or

(2) YOU CAN NOT REJECT the hypothesis.

This is an important point!

You can not PROVE the hypothesis with a single experiment, because there is a chance that you made an error somewhere along the way.

What you can say is that your results SUPPORT the original hypothesis.

If your original hypothesis didn't match up with the final results of your experiment, don't change the hypothesis.

Instead, try to explain what might have been wrong with your original hypothesis. What information were you missing when you made your prediction? What are the possible reasons the hypothesis and experimental results didn't match up?

Remember, a science fair experiment isn't a failure simply because does not agree with your hypothesis. No one will take points off if your prediction wasn't accurate. Many important scientific discoveries were made as a result of experiments gone wrong!

A science fair experiment is only a failure if its design is flawed. A flawed experiment is one that (1) doesn't keep its variables under control, and (2) doesn't sufficiently answer the question that you asked of it.

Search This Site:

Science Fairs

• Introduction
• Project Ideas
• Types of Projects
• Pick a Topic
• Scientific Method
• Design Your Experiment
• Present Your Project
• What Judges Want
• Parent Info

Recommended *

• Sample Science Projects - botany, ecology, microbiology, nutrition

* This site contains affiliate links to carefully chosen, high quality products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

• Terms of Service

Copyright © 2006 - 2023, Science Made Simple, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

The science fair projects & ideas, science articles and all other material on this website are covered by copyright laws and may not be reproduced without permission.

• Most Recent
• Free Silly Handwriting
• Easy Sub Plans Template
• Sprinkle Topped Shop
• My TpT Shop
• Amazon Favorites
• Free Video Series

The Sprinkle Topped Teacher

7 Easy Scientific Method Experiments

Kids’ natural curiosity never fails to amaze me. Their imaginations and observation skills run wild, especially at the elementary level. And the classroom is the perfect place to explore and exercise their curious minds!

When it comes to introducing younger students to scientific concepts like drawing observations and conclusions, the scientific method is a great place to start. It doesn’t have to be anything crazy. I’ve seen some pretty intense resources that teach the scientific method for kids, and they’ve been anything but kid friendly!

My preferred way to teach science is to boil the scientific method down to these 5 steps:

• Asking a research question
• Making a hypothesis
• Doing the experiment
• Taking observations
• Writing a conclusion

Keeping the scientific method for kids simple lets them explore their world without confusing them too much. When it comes to science concepts, we want to ease younger students in — not overwhelm them. This helps kids build a love of science that will last their whole lives!

With all that being said, I’ve gathered my favorite easy scientific method experiments for younger students into one bundle for you! These 7 Easy Science Experiments to Teach the Scientific Method are amazing because they all follow the same framework. This helps students know what to expect when it’s time to experiment and keeps your curriculum cohesive. Once we do one or two, my class gets into a nice groove and doesn’t need much direction on my part.

Plus, each of these experiments are available in a digital format, so they’re perfect for in-person or distance learning! And since they are so easy for students to follow, students will have no problem completing them at home.

What are the 7 easy scientific method experiments?

I’m glad you asked! Here is everything that is included in the scientific method for kids bundle:

1. Rainbow Milk Experiment

In the Rainbow Milk Magic Experiment, students will combine milk, dish soap, and food coloring to learn all about why the colors begin to swirl and look as if they are exploding into a rainbow. This is such a simple science experiment that works great with students of any age!

2. Tornado in a Bottle Experiment

This Tornado in a Bottle Experiment is the perfect way to teach the scientific method to kids. Students will practice measuring to fill a water bottle, then add dish soap and of course some glitter! They will then create a vortex to simulate a tornado and learn all about tornadoes.

3. Fingerprint Science Experiment

In the Fingerprint Science Experiment, students will become detectives and investigate their fingerprints while learning about the scientific method! This STEM fingerprint science experiment will cover the three types of fingerprints and super fun facts about fingerprints in humans and animals.

4. Marshmallow Toothpick Tower Science Experiment

The Marshmallow Toothpick Tower Science Experiment teaches students about building structures. They get to build their own masterpieces with marshmallows and toothpicks. As a bonus, this one ends in a tasty snack that students can enjoy!

5. Coffee Filter Digital Science Experiment

Students will learn about pigment and chromatography through this engaging experiment. They will get to draw a picture on a coffee filter using markers and observe what happens when it is sprayed with water. This is a fantastic way to introduce students to the concept of chemistry!

6. Slime Experiment

What kid doesn’t love slime?! This fun experiment lets them make their own with just a few household supplies. I love using this one during Halloween — it’s got the perfect spooky vibe!

7. Clean a Dirty Penny Science Experiment

Students love to collect and bring in a dirty penny for this science experiment. Students discover which cleaning solution works best to clean it and why using the scientific method! All you need are pennies, water, dish soap, salt, and vinegar. It’s a great option for Presidents’ Day, too!

What’s included in each scientific method for kids experiment?

I recently edited this bundle of experiments to include a table of contents, digital versions on Google Slides, and some great teacher tips to help your experiments run smoothly and make life easier for you. Each experiment includes…

●       Explanation of the experiment, great for parents to follow at home!

●       Guiding Question and Hypothesis

●       Experiment (Picture and written)

●       Observations (Picture and written)

●       Conclusion

●       The science behind the experiment explained (includes fill in the blank option as well)

There you have it: everything you need to teach the scientific method to your students or a child at home!

Teaching the scientific method to kids doesn’t have to be complicated. It’s best to stick to 5 steps and use the same experimental format to keep science lessons cohesive. My 7 Easy Science Experiments to Teach the Scientific Method are an amazing option for anyone looking to introduce students to key STEM concepts!

How often do you experiment in your classroom? What’s your favorite experiment to do? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Share this:

You may also like, the 20 minute sub plan checklist, low-prep, easy st. patrick’s day activity, amazon favorites for the classroom part 2, 2nd grade fractions activity, number search puzzle for fun multiplication and division practice.

Cool Science Experiments Headquarters

Making Science Fun, Easy to Teach and Exciting to Learn!

Science Experiments

Balloon Blow-up Science Experiment

Can you blow up a balloon without using your mouth? In this simple science experiment, we’re going to show you how to do it with only a few everyday items you probably already have in your home. It makes a great experiment for young children because the set-up is simple and it only takes a few minutes to get to the exciting finale.

In addition to a video demonstration and detailed printable instructions, we also have the scientific explanation of how this simple chemical reaction works making it perfect for older scientists too.

JUMP TO SECTION: Instructions | Video Tutorial | How it Works

Supplies Needed

• Small Soda Bottle
• Baking Soda

Balloon Blow-up Science Lab Kit – Only $5

Use our easy Balloon Blow-up Science Lab Kit to grab your students’ attention without the stress of planning!

It’s everything you need to  make science easy for teachers and fun for students  — using inexpensive materials you probably already have in your storage closet!

Balloon Blow Up Science Experiment Instructions

Step 1 – Start with some questions: How do you blow up a balloon? What if I told you that you couldn’t blow air into it, do you think you could still inflate (blow-up) the balloon? Then observe the supplies for the experiments. Do you think they can be use to blow up the balloon? If so how? Write down your hypothesis (prediction).

Step 2 – Using a funnel, pour about a third of a cup of vinegar into the bottle. We used Apple Cider Vinegar, but any type of vinegar will work.

Step 3 – Then insert another funnel into the mouth of the balloon. We recommend using two different funnels. One funnel for filling the bottle with vinegar and one for the balloon. However, you can do the experiment with only one funnel. Just make sure you completely wash and dry the funnel after you add the vinegar and before you put it into the balloon. This is very important.

Step 4 – Place two teaspoons of baking soda into the funnel so it falls into the balloon. When the balloon is filled with the baking soda, carefully remove it from the funnel. 

Step 5 – Next, secure the mouth of the balloon over the mouth of the bottle. Take your time doing this and don’t let any of the baking soda fall out of the balloon and into the bottom of the bottle. Take a moment to make some observations. What will happen if we lift up the balloon? Write down your hypothesis (prediction) and then test to see if you were right!

Step 6 – While holding the bottle, lift the end of the balloon and allow the baking soda to drop into the bottle. 

Step 7 – What happens to the balloon? Was your hypothesis correct? Wondering what caused the balloon to inflate? Find out the answer in the how does this experiment work section below.

Video Tutorial

How Does the Science Experiment Work?

When baking soda (a base) and vinegar (an acid) are mixed together they create a chemical reaction that results in the formation of carbon dioxide gas. Gases do not have a specific shape or volume, rather they expand rapidly filling their container. Gases expand rapidly because their particles move at high speeds in all directions. As the carbon dioxide gas fills the bottle, it has nowhere else to go so it begins to fill the balloon. As the carbon dioxide gas fills the balloon, the balloon inflates. The more gas that is created, the larger the balloon will inflate.

The baking soda and vinegar chemical reaction will continue to inflate the balloon as long as there is still baking soda and vinegar to react. Once the reaction between baking soda and vinegar has stopped, the balloon will slowly begin to deflate.

An acid is a substance that tastes bitter, reacts with metals and carbonates, and turns blue litmus paper red. A base is a substance that tastes bitter, feels slippery, and turns red litmus paper blue.

Other Ideas to Try

Does changing the amount of baking soda and vinegar change the size of the balloon when it inflates? What would happen if you used another acid like lemon juice instead of the vinegar? Would it react the same with the baking soda?

I hope you enjoyed the experiment. Here are some printable instructions:

Instructions

• Using a funnel, pour about a third of a cup of vinegar into the bottle. Tip: I used Apple Cider Vinegar, but any kind of vinegar will work.
• Then insert another funnel into the mouth of the balloon. Tip: It is best to have two funnels, one for filling the bottle with vinegar and one for the balloon. If you only have one funnel, it is important that you completely wash and dry the funnel after you add the vinegar and before you put it into the balloon.
• Place two teaspoons of baking soda into the funnel so it falls into the balloon. Then remove the balloon from the funnel.
• Next, secure the the mouth of the balloon over the top of the bottle. Tip: Don’t let any of the baking soda drop into the bottle…yet!
• While holding the bottle, lift the end of the balloon allowing the baking soda to drop into the bottle.
• Watch in amazement as the balloon magically inflates!

Reader Interactions

November 2, 2017 at 11:00 am

Yeah but don’t just eyeball the measurements of things because if you use to much baking soda it will make the baloon spring a leak and all sorts of stuff will fly out and make a big mess.

I speak form experience

Seriously, don’t do this

April 21, 2018 at 10:26 am

I did this experiment and it is perfect!

You need to hold properly the bottle when you mix the baking soda into vinegar.

May 22, 2019 at 8:57 am

We’re doing science experiments at school and this one is brilliant! I loved it a lot.

June 22, 2020 at 11:15 am

I love this experiment! My balloon grew 6 inches!

June 19, 2023 at 11:17 pm

I tried and it worked well – Exited to do such experiment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Privacy Policy
• Disclosure Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Cool Science Experiments HQ

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

High school biology

Course: high school biology   >   unit 1.

• Biology overview
• Preparing to study biology
• What is life?
• The scientific method
• Data to justify experimental claims examples
• Scientific method and data analysis
• Introduction to experimental design
• Controlled experiments

Biology and the scientific method review

• Experimental design and bias

The nature of biology

Properties of life.

• Organization: Living things are highly organized (meaning they contain specialized, coordinated parts) and are made up of one or more cells .
• Metabolism: Living things must use energy and consume nutrients to carry out the chemical reactions that sustain life. The sum total of the biochemical reactions occurring in an organism is called its metabolism .
• Homeostasis : Living organisms regulate their internal environment to maintain the relatively narrow range of conditions needed for cell function.
• Growth : Living organisms undergo regulated growth. Individual cells become larger in size, and multicellular organisms accumulate many cells through cell division.
• Reproduction : Living organisms can reproduce themselves to create new organisms.
• Response : Living organisms respond to stimuli or changes in their environment.
• Evolution : Populations of living organisms can undergo evolution , meaning that the genetic makeup of a population may change over time.

Scientific methodology

Scientific method example: failure to toast.

• Observation: the toaster won't toast.
• Question: Why won't my toaster toast?
• Hypothesis: Maybe the outlet is broken.
• Prediction: If I plug the toaster into a different outlet, then it will toast the bread.
• Test of prediction: Plug the toaster into a different outlet and try again.
• Iteration time!

Experimental design

Reducing errors and bias.

• Having a large sample size in the experiment: This helps to account for any small differences among the test subjects that may provide unexpected results.
• Repeating experimental trials multiple times: Errors may result from slight differences in test subjects, or mistakes in methodology or data collection. Repeating trials helps reduce those effects.
• Including all data points: Sometimes it is tempting to throw away data points that are inconsistent with the proposed hypothesis. However, this makes for an inaccurate study! All data points need to be included, whether they support the hypothesis or not.
• Using placebos , when appropriate: Placebos prevent the test subjects from knowing whether they received a real therapeutic substance. This helps researchers determine whether a substance has a true effect.
• Implementing double-blind studies , when appropriate: Double-blind studies prevent researchers from knowing the status of a particular participant. This helps eliminate observer bias.

Communicating findings

Things to remember.

• A hypothesis is not necessarily the right explanation. Instead, it is a possible explanation that can be tested to see if it is likely correct, or if a new hypothesis needs to be made.
• Not all explanations can be considered a hypothesis. A hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable in order to be valid. For example, “The universe is beautiful" is not a good hypothesis, because there is no experiment that could test this statement and show it to be false.
• In most cases, the scientific method is an iterative process. In other words, it's a cycle rather than a straight line. The result of one experiment often becomes feedback that raises questions for more experimentation.
• Scientists use the word "theory" in a very different way than non-scientists. When many people say "I have a theory," they really mean "I have a guess." Scientific theories, on the other hand, are well-tested and highly reliable scientific explanations of natural phenomena. They unify many repeated observations and data collected from lots of experiments.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.14: Experiments and Hypotheses

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 43806

Now we’ll focus on the methods of scientific inquiry. Science often involves making observations and developing hypotheses. Experiments and further observations are often used to test the hypotheses.

A scientific experiment is a carefully organized procedure in which the scientist intervenes in a system to change something, then observes the result of the change. Scientific inquiry often involves doing experiments, though not always. For example, a scientist studying the mating behaviors of ladybugs might begin with detailed observations of ladybugs mating in their natural habitats. While this research may not be experimental, it is scientific: it involves careful and verifiable observation of the natural world. The same scientist might then treat some of the ladybugs with a hormone hypothesized to trigger mating and observe whether these ladybugs mated sooner or more often than untreated ones. This would qualify as an experiment because the scientist is now making a change in the system and observing the effects.

Forming a Hypothesis

When conducting scientific experiments, researchers develop hypotheses to guide experimental design. A hypothesis is a suggested explanation that is both testable and falsifiable. You must be able to test your hypothesis, and it must be possible to prove your hypothesis true or false.

For example, Michael observes that maple trees lose their leaves in the fall. He might then propose a possible explanation for this observation: “cold weather causes maple trees to lose their leaves in the fall.” This statement is testable. He could grow maple trees in a warm enclosed environment such as a greenhouse and see if their leaves still dropped in the fall. The hypothesis is also falsifiable. If the leaves still dropped in the warm environment, then clearly temperature was not the main factor in causing maple leaves to drop in autumn.

In the Try It below, you can practice recognizing scientific hypotheses. As you consider each statement, try to think as a scientist would: can I test this hypothesis with observations or experiments? Is the statement falsifiable? If the answer to either of these questions is “no,” the statement is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Practice Questions

Determine whether each following statement is a scientific hypothesis.

• No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable.
• No. This statement is not testable.
• No. This statement is not falsifiable.
• Yes. This statement is testable and falsifiable.

[reveal-answer q=”429550″] Show Answers [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”429550″]

• d: Yes. This statement is testable and falsifiable. This could be tested with a number of different kinds of observations and experiments, and it is possible to gather evidence that indicates that air pollution is not linked with asthma.
• a: No. This statement is not testable or falsifiable. “Bad thoughts and behaviors” are excessively vague and subjective variables that would be impossible to measure or agree upon in a reliable way. The statement might be “falsifiable” if you came up with a counterexample: a “wicked” place that was not punished by a natural disaster. But some would question whether the people in that place were really wicked, and others would continue to predict that a natural disaster was bound to strike that place at some point. There is no reason to suspect that people’s immoral behavior affects the weather unless you bring up the intervention of a supernatural being, making this idea even harder to test.

[/hidden-answer]

Testing a Vaccine

Let’s examine the scientific process by discussing an actual scientific experiment conducted by researchers at the University of Washington. These researchers investigated whether a vaccine may reduce the incidence of the human papillomavirus (HPV). The experimental process and results were published in an article titled, “ A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine .”

Preliminary observations made by the researchers who conducted the HPV experiment are listed below:

• Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted virus in the United States.
• There are about 40 different types of HPV. A significant number of people that have HPV are unaware of it because many of these viruses cause no symptoms.
• Some types of HPV can cause cervical cancer.
• About 4,000 women a year die of cervical cancer in the United States.

Practice Question

Researchers have developed a potential vaccine against HPV and want to test it. What is the first testable hypothesis that the researchers should study?

• HPV causes cervical cancer.
• People should not have unprotected sex with many partners.
• People who get the vaccine will not get HPV.
• The HPV vaccine will protect people against cancer.

[reveal-answer q=”20917″] Show Answer [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”20917″]Hypothesis A is not the best choice because this information is already known from previous studies. Hypothesis B is not testable because scientific hypotheses are not value statements; they do not include judgments like “should,” “better than,” etc. Scientific evidence certainly might support this value judgment, but a hypothesis would take a different form: “Having unprotected sex with many partners increases a person’s risk for cervical cancer.” Before the researchers can test if the vaccine protects against cancer (hypothesis D), they want to test if it protects against the virus. This statement will make an excellent hypothesis for the next study. The researchers should first test hypothesis C—whether or not the new vaccine can prevent HPV.[/hidden-answer]

Experimental Design

You’ve successfully identified a hypothesis for the University of Washington’s study on HPV: People who get the HPV vaccine will not get HPV.

The next step is to design an experiment that will test this hypothesis. There are several important factors to consider when designing a scientific experiment. First, scientific experiments must have an experimental group. This is the group that receives the experimental treatment necessary to address the hypothesis.

The experimental group receives the vaccine, but how can we know if the vaccine made a difference? Many things may change HPV infection rates in a group of people over time. To clearly show that the vaccine was effective in helping the experimental group, we need to include in our study an otherwise similar control group that does not get the treatment. We can then compare the two groups and determine if the vaccine made a difference. The control group shows us what happens in the absence of the factor under study.

However, the control group cannot get “nothing.” Instead, the control group often receives a placebo. A placebo is a procedure that has no expected therapeutic effect—such as giving a person a sugar pill or a shot containing only plain saline solution with no drug. Scientific studies have shown that the “placebo effect” can alter experimental results because when individuals are told that they are or are not being treated, this knowledge can alter their actions or their emotions, which can then alter the results of the experiment.

Moreover, if the doctor knows which group a patient is in, this can also influence the results of the experiment. Without saying so directly, the doctor may show—through body language or other subtle cues—his or her views about whether the patient is likely to get well. These errors can then alter the patient’s experience and change the results of the experiment. Therefore, many clinical studies are “double blind.” In these studies, neither the doctor nor the patient knows which group the patient is in until all experimental results have been collected.

Both placebo treatments and double-blind procedures are designed to prevent bias. Bias is any systematic error that makes a particular experimental outcome more or less likely. Errors can happen in any experiment: people make mistakes in measurement, instruments fail, computer glitches can alter data. But most such errors are random and don’t favor one outcome over another. Patients’ belief in a treatment can make it more likely to appear to “work.” Placebos and double-blind procedures are used to level the playing field so that both groups of study subjects are treated equally and share similar beliefs about their treatment.

The scientists who are researching the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine will test their hypothesis by separating 2,392 young women into two groups: the control group and the experimental group. Answer the following questions about these two groups.

• This group is given a placebo.
• This group is deliberately infected with HPV.
• This group is given nothing.
• This group is given the HPV vaccine.

[reveal-answer q=”918962″] Show Answers [/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”918962″]

• a: This group is given a placebo. A placebo will be a shot, just like the HPV vaccine, but it will have no active ingredient. It may change peoples’ thinking or behavior to have such a shot given to them, but it will not stimulate the immune systems of the subjects in the same way as predicted for the vaccine itself.
• d: This group is given the HPV vaccine. The experimental group will receive the HPV vaccine and researchers will then be able to see if it works, when compared to the control group.

Experimental Variables

A variable is a characteristic of a subject (in this case, of a person in the study) that can vary over time or among individuals. Sometimes a variable takes the form of a category, such as male or female; often a variable can be measured precisely, such as body height. Ideally, only one variable is different between the control group and the experimental group in a scientific experiment. Otherwise, the researchers will not be able to determine which variable caused any differences seen in the results. For example, imagine that the people in the control group were, on average, much more sexually active than the people in the experimental group. If, at the end of the experiment, the control group had a higher rate of HPV infection, could you confidently determine why? Maybe the experimental subjects were protected by the vaccine, but maybe they were protected by their low level of sexual contact.

To avoid this situation, experimenters make sure that their subject groups are as similar as possible in all variables except for the variable that is being tested in the experiment. This variable, or factor, will be deliberately changed in the experimental group. The one variable that is different between the two groups is called the independent variable. An independent variable is known or hypothesized to cause some outcome. Imagine an educational researcher investigating the effectiveness of a new teaching strategy in a classroom. The experimental group receives the new teaching strategy, while the control group receives the traditional strategy. It is the teaching strategy that is the independent variable in this scenario. In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that the scientist deliberately changes or imposes on the subjects.

Dependent variables are known or hypothesized consequences; they are the effects that result from changes or differences in an independent variable. In an experiment, the dependent variables are those that the scientist measures before, during, and particularly at the end of the experiment to see if they have changed as expected. The dependent variable must be stated so that it is clear how it will be observed or measured. Rather than comparing “learning” among students (which is a vague and difficult to measure concept), an educational researcher might choose to compare test scores, which are very specific and easy to measure.

In any real-world example, many, many variables MIGHT affect the outcome of an experiment, yet only one or a few independent variables can be tested. Other variables must be kept as similar as possible between the study groups and are called control variables . For our educational research example, if the control group consisted only of people between the ages of 18 and 20 and the experimental group contained people between the ages of 30 and 35, we would not know if it was the teaching strategy or the students’ ages that played a larger role in the results. To avoid this problem, a good study will be set up so that each group contains students with a similar age profile. In a well-designed educational research study, student age will be a controlled variable, along with other possibly important factors like gender, past educational achievement, and pre-existing knowledge of the subject area.

What is the independent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (all of the subjects will be female)
• Presence or absence of the HPV vaccine
• Presence or absence of HPV (the virus)

[reveal-answer q=”68680″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”68680″]Answer b. Presence or absence of the HPV vaccine. This is the variable that is different between the control and the experimental groups. All the subjects in this study are female, so this variable is the same in all groups. In a well-designed study, the two groups will be of similar age. The presence or absence of the virus is what the researchers will measure at the end of the experiment. Ideally the two groups will both be HPV-free at the start of the experiment.

List three control variables other than age.

[practice-area rows=”3″][/practice-area] [reveal-answer q=”903121″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”903121″]Some possible control variables would be: general health of the women, sexual activity, lifestyle, diet, socioeconomic status, etc.

What is the dependent variable in this experiment?

• Sex (male or female)
• Rates of HPV infection
• Age (years)

[reveal-answer q=”907103″]Show Answer[/reveal-answer] [hidden-answer a=”907103″]Answer b. Rates of HPV infection. The researchers will measure how many individuals got infected with HPV after a given period of time.[/hidden-answer]

Contributors and Attributions

• Revision and adaptation. Authored by : Shelli Carter and Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
• Scientific Inquiry. Provided by : Open Learning Initiative. Located at : https://oli.cmu.edu/jcourse/workbook/activity/page?context=434a5c2680020ca6017c03488572e0f8 . Project : Introduction to Biology (Open + Free). License : CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• Science Writing

How to Write a Good Lab Conclusion in Science

Last Updated: March 21, 2024 Fact Checked

This article was co-authored by Bess Ruff, MA . Bess Ruff is a Geography PhD student at Florida State University. She received her MA in Environmental Science and Management from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2016. She has conducted survey work for marine spatial planning projects in the Caribbean and provided research support as a graduate fellow for the Sustainable Fisheries Group. There are 11 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 1,759,596 times.

A lab report describes an entire experiment from start to finish, outlining the procedures, reporting results, and analyzing data. The report is used to demonstrate what has been learned, and it will provide a way for other people to see your process for the experiment and understand how you arrived at your conclusions. The conclusion is an integral part of the report; this is the section that reiterates the experiment’s main findings and gives the reader an overview of the lab trial. Writing a solid conclusion to your lab report will demonstrate that you’ve effectively learned the objectives of your assignment.

Outlining Your Conclusion

• Restate : Restate the lab experiment by describing the assignment.
• Explain : Explain the purpose of the lab experiment. What were you trying to figure out or discover? Talk briefly about the procedure you followed to complete the lab.
• Results : Explain your results. Confirm whether or not your hypothesis was supported by the results.
• Uncertainties : Account for uncertainties and errors. Explain, for example, if there were other circumstances beyond your control that might have impacted the experiment’s results.
• New : Discuss new questions or discoveries that emerged from the experiment.

• Your assignment may also have specific questions that need to be answered. Make sure you answer these fully and coherently in your conclusion.

Discussing the Experiment and Hypothesis

• If you tried the experiment more than once, describe the reasons for doing so. Discuss changes that you made in your procedures.
• Brainstorm ways to explain your results in more depth. Go back through your lab notes, paying particular attention to the results you observed. [5] X Trustworthy Source University of North Carolina Writing Center UNC's on-campus and online instructional service that provides assistance to students, faculty, and others during the writing process Go to source

• Start this section with wording such as, “The results showed that…”
• You don’t need to give the raw data here. Just summarize the main points, calculate averages, or give a range of data to give an overall picture to the reader.
• Make sure to explain whether or not any statistical analyses were significant, and to what degree, such as 1%, 5%, or 10%.

• Use simple language such as, “The results supported the hypothesis,” or “The results did not support the hypothesis.”

Demonstrating What You Have Learned

• If it’s not clear in your conclusion what you learned from the lab, start off by writing, “In this lab, I learned…” This will give the reader a heads up that you will be describing exactly what you learned.
• Add details about what you learned and how you learned it. Adding dimension to your learning outcomes will convince your reader that you did, in fact, learn from the lab. Give specifics about how you learned that molecules will act in a particular environment, for example.
• Describe how what you learned in the lab could be applied to a future experiment.

• On a new line, write the question in italics. On the next line, write the answer to the question in regular text.

• If your experiment did not achieve the objectives, explain or speculate why not.

Wrapping Up Your Conclusion

• If your experiment raised questions that your collected data can’t answer, discuss this here.

• Describe what is new or innovative about your research.
• This can often set you apart from your classmates, many of whom will just write up the barest of discussion and conclusion.

Finalizing Your Lab Report

Community Q&A

• If you include figures or tables in your conclusion, be sure to include a brief caption or label so that the reader knows what the figures refer to. Also, discuss the figures briefly in the text of your report. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Once again, avoid using personal pronouns (I, myself, we, our group) in a lab report. The first-person point-of-view is often seen as subjective, whereas science is based on objectivity. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0
• Ensure the language used is straightforward with specific details. Try not to drift off topic. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

• Take care with writing your lab report when working in a team setting. While the lab experiment may be a collaborative effort, your lab report is your own work. If you copy sections from someone else’s report, this will be considered plagiarism. Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://phoenixcollege.libguides.com/LabReportWriting/introduction
• ↑ https://www.hcs-k12.org/userfiles/354/Classes/18203/conclusionwriting.pdf
• ↑ https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/teachingresources/discipline/english/literacy/Pages/puttingittogether.aspx
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/brainstorming/
• ↑ https://advice.writing.utoronto.ca/types-of-writing/lab-report/
• ↑ http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/hypothes.php
• ↑ https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/conclusion
• ↑ https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/introduction/researchproblem
• ↑ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/scientific-reports/
• ↑ https://phoenixcollege.libguides.com/LabReportWriting/labreportstyle
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

To write a good lab conclusion in science, start with restating the lab experiment by describing the assignment. Next, explain what you were trying to discover or figure out by doing the experiment. Then, list your results and explain how they confirmed or did not confirm your hypothesis. Additionally, include any uncertainties, such as circumstances beyond your control that may have impacted the results. Finally, discuss any new questions or discoveries that emerged from the experiment. For more advice, including how to wrap up your lab report with a final statement, keep reading. Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Maddie Briere

Oct 5, 2017

Did this article help you?

Jun 13, 2017

Saujash Barman

Sep 7, 2017

Cindy Zhang

Jan 16, 2017

Oct 29, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Scientific Method: Step 6: CONCLUSION

• Step 1: QUESTION
• Step 2: RESEARCH
• Step 3: HYPOTHESIS
• Step 4: EXPERIMENT
• Step 5: DATA
• Step 6: CONCLUSION

Step 6: Conclusion

Finally, you've reached your conclusion. Now it is time to summarize and explain what happened in your experiment. Your conclusion should answer the question posed in step one. Your conclusion should be based solely on your results.

Think about the following questions:

• Was your hypothesis correct?
• If your hypothesis wasn't correct, what can you conclude from that?
• Do you need to run your experiment again changing a variable?
• Is your data clearly defined so everyone can understand the results and follow your reasoning?

Remember, even a failed experiment can yield a valuable lesson.  

Draw your conclusion

• Conclusion Sections in Scientific Research Reports (The Writing Center at George Mason)
• Sample Conclusions (Science Buddies)
• << Previous: Step 5: DATA
• Next: Resources >>
• Last Updated: Jan 26, 2024 10:39 AM
• URL: https://harford.libguides.com/scientific_method

• Science Notes Posts
• Contact Science Notes
• Todd Helmenstine Biography
• Anne Helmenstine Biography
• Free Printable Periodic Tables (PDF and PNG)
• Periodic Table Wallpapers
• Interactive Periodic Table
• Periodic Table Posters
• How to Grow Crystals
• Chemistry Projects
• Fire and Flames Projects
• Holiday Science
• Chemistry Problems With Answers
• Physics Problems
• Unit Conversion Example Problems
• Chemistry Worksheets
• Biology Worksheets
• Periodic Table Worksheets
• Physical Science Worksheets
• Science Lab Worksheets
• My Amazon Books

Experiment Definition in Science – What Is a Science Experiment?

In science, an experiment is simply a test of a hypothesis in the scientific method . It is a controlled examination of cause and effect. Here is a look at what a science experiment is (and is not), the key factors in an experiment, examples, and types of experiments.

Experiment Definition in Science

By definition, an experiment is a procedure that tests a hypothesis. A hypothesis, in turn, is a prediction of cause and effect or the predicted outcome of changing one factor of a situation. Both the hypothesis and experiment are components of the scientific method. The steps of the scientific method are:

• Make observations.
• Ask a question or identify a problem.
• State a hypothesis.
• Perform an experiment that tests the hypothesis.
• Based on the results of the experiment, either accept or reject the hypothesis.
• Draw conclusions and report the outcome of the experiment.

Key Parts of an Experiment

The two key parts of an experiment are the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the one factor that you control or change in an experiment. The dependent variable is the factor that you measure that responds to the independent variable. An experiment often includes other types of variables , but at its heart, it’s all about the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

Examples of Experiments

Fertilizer and plant size.

For example, you think a certain fertilizer helps plants grow better. You’ve watched your plants grow and they seem to do better when they have the fertilizer compared to when they don’t. But, observations are only the beginning of science. So, you state a hypothesis: Adding fertilizer increases plant size. Note, you could have stated the hypothesis in different ways. Maybe you think the fertilizer increases plant mass or fruit production, for example. However you state the hypothesis, it includes both the independent and dependent variables. In this case, the independent variable is the presence or absence of fertilizer. The dependent variable is the response to the independent variable, which is the size of the plants.

Now that you have a hypothesis, the next step is designing an experiment that tests it. Experimental design is very important because the way you conduct an experiment influences its outcome. For example, if you use too small of an amount of fertilizer you may see no effect from the treatment. Or, if you dump an entire container of fertilizer on a plant you could kill it! So, recording the steps of the experiment help you judge the outcome of the experiment and aid others who come after you and examine your work. Other factors that might influence your results might include the species of plant and duration of the treatment. Record any conditions that might affect the outcome. Ideally, you want the only difference between your two groups of plants to be whether or not they receive fertilizer. Then, measure the height of the plants and see if there is a difference between the two groups.

Salt and Cookies

You don’t need a lab for an experiment. For example, consider a baking experiment. Let’s say you like the flavor of salt in your cookies, but you’re pretty sure the batch you made using extra salt fell a bit flat. If you double the amount of salt in a recipe, will it affect their size? Here, the independent variable is the amount of salt in the recipe and the dependent variable is cookie size.

Test this hypothesis with an experiment. Bake cookies using the normal recipe (your control group ) and bake some using twice the salt (the experimental group). Make sure it’s the exact same recipe. Bake the cookies at the same temperature and for the same time. Only change the amount of salt in the recipe. Then measure the height or diameter of the cookies and decide whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.

Examples of Things That Are Not Experiments

Based on the examples of experiments, you should see what is not an experiment:

• Making observations does not constitute an experiment. Initial observations often lead to an experiment, but are not a substitute for one.
• Making a model is not an experiment.
• Neither is making a poster.
• Just trying something to see what happens is not an experiment. You need a hypothesis or prediction about the outcome.
• Changing a lot of things at once isn’t an experiment. You only have one independent and one dependent variable. However, in an experiment, you might suspect the independent variable has an effect on a separate. So, you design a new experiment to test this.

Types of Experiments

There are three main types of experiments: controlled experiments, natural experiments, and field experiments,

• Controlled experiment : A controlled experiment compares two groups of samples that differ only in independent variable. For example, a drug trial compares the effect of a group taking a placebo (control group) against those getting the drug (the treatment group). Experiments in a lab or home generally are controlled experiments
• Natural experiment : Another name for a natural experiment is a quasi-experiment. In this type of experiment, the researcher does not directly control the independent variable, plus there may be other variables at play. Here, the goal is establishing a correlation between the independent and dependent variable. For example, in the formation of new elements a scientist hypothesizes that a certain collision between particles creates a new atom. But, other outcomes may be possible. Or, perhaps only decay products are observed that indicate the element, and not the new atom itself. Many fields of science rely on natural experiments, since controlled experiments aren’t always possible.
• Field experiment : While a controlled experiments takes place in a lab or other controlled setting, a field experiment occurs in a natural setting. Some phenomena cannot be readily studied in a lab or else the setting exerts an influence that affects the results. So, a field experiment may have higher validity. However, since the setting is not controlled, it is also subject to external factors and potential contamination. For example, if you study whether a certain plumage color affects bird mate selection, a field experiment in a natural environment eliminates the stressors of an artificial environment. Yet, other factors that could be controlled in a lab may influence results. For example, nutrition and health are controlled in a lab, but not in the field.
• Bailey, R.A. (2008). Design of Comparative Experiments . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521683579.
• di Francia, G. Toraldo (1981). The Investigation of the Physical World . Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29925-X.
• Hinkelmann, Klaus; Kempthorne, Oscar (2008). Design and Analysis of Experiments. Volume I: Introduction to Experimental Design (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-72756-9.
• Holland, Paul W. (December 1986). “Statistics and Causal Inference”.  Journal of the American Statistical Association . 81 (396): 945–960. doi: 10.2307/2289064
• Stohr-Hunt, Patricia (1996). “An Analysis of Frequency of Hands-on Experience and Science Achievement”. Journal of Research in Science Teaching . 33 (1): 101–109. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<101::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Z

Related Posts

Science Projects With Hypothesis & Conclusion

Rochelle leggett.

Every science experiment has some components that are required for an experiment to be considered valid, whether that experiment is conducted by an expert or a student who is working on a science fair project. Every experiment must have a hypothesis, which is declared before the start of an experiment. An experimental writeup must also have a conclusion. Every valid experiment must have a hypothesis and a conclusion, without exception.

Explore this article

• Scientific Method
• Constructing a Hypothesis
• Conclusions

1 Scientific Method

The scientific method is the method which all scientists use to observe the world around us. We are naturally biased, and the purpose of using the scientific method is to try to be as unbiased and objective as possible when testing ideas. The scientific method has four basic components: observing a phenomena of the world, creating a hypothesis to explain the phenomena you see, using the hypothesis to explain other, related phenomena, then testing to see whether the hypothesis is correct.

2 Hypotheses

The scientific method revolves around the hypothesis, which makes the construction of the hypothesis one of the most important parts of planning an experiment. The point of a hypothesis is to focus an experimental procedure to answer a single, specific question that will create a conclusive answer. A hypothesis demonstrates an observation that you have made or a theory that you have about the world and is typically presented as a statement rather than a question.

3 Constructing a Hypothesis

To make a hypothesis, first conduct research on the subject that you are testing. This will give you information to base your idea on to make a more informed guess about the outcome of your experiment. Your hypothesis, then, is a prediction about the outcome of the experiment. For instance, after researching LED grow lights, you might determine that "plants grown under LED lights will be bigger than those grown under traditional grow lamps." This is a statement based on research and observations that can be tested conclusively. A hypothesis that cannot be conclusively tested is not valid. At the end of the experiment, you must be able to say whether the hypothesis was true or not.

4 Conclusions

A conclusion states whether the hypothesis was true or not and what evidence from your experiment supports your conclusion about the hypothesis. Your conclusions should also summarize the information gathered from the experiment, state your observations of the variables, discuss what flaws there might have been in the experiment and what further experiments could be done. Remember, a hypothesis that is proven false is not an indication of a failed experiment, as the information gathered from the experiment is still valuable.

• 1 University of Rochester Department of Physics and Astronomy: Introduction to the Scientific Method
• 2 Science Buddies: Steps of the Scientific Method
• 3 Science Buddies: Conclusions

Related Articles

Reasons for a Hypothesis

Invention Convention Ideas for Kids

The 5 Basic Steps in Inquiry Science

Four Elements of Critical Thinking

Genetic Engineering & Religious Beliefs

Advantages & Disadvantages of Positivism

What Is an Empirical Statement?

Correlational Methods vs. Experimental Methods

How to Write an Inductive Essay

How to Identify a Hypothesis

How to Interpret the Shapiro-Wilk Test

How to Write a Science Research Proposal

What Is True Communism?

Quantum Physics & Christian Faith

What Are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Correlation...

Animal Adaptations & Science Projects

Examples of Vaporization Not Involving Water

How to Write Up a Science Experiment in 3rd Grade

How to Write an Essay Regarding a Science Experiment

What Is the Chemical Formula for Magnesium Nitrate...

Regardless of how old we are, we never stop learning. Classroom is the educational resource for people of all ages. Whether you’re studying times tables or applying to college, Classroom has the answers.

• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Copyright Policy
• Manage Preferences

© 2020 Leaf Group Ltd. / Leaf Group Media, All Rights Reserved. Based on the Word Net lexical database for the English Language. See disclaimer .

What Is a Hypothesis? (Science)

If...,Then...

Angela Lumsden/Getty Images

• Scientific Method
• Chemical Laws
• Periodic Table
• Projects & Experiments
• Biochemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Medical Chemistry
• Chemistry In Everyday Life
• Famous Chemists
• Activities for Kids
• Abbreviations & Acronyms
• Weather & Climate
• Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences, University of Tennessee at Knoxville
• B.A., Physics and Mathematics, Hastings College

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observation. The definition depends on the subject.

In science, a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. It is a prediction or explanation that is tested by an experiment. Observations and experiments may disprove a scientific hypothesis, but can never entirely prove one.

In the study of logic, a hypothesis is an if-then proposition, typically written in the form, "If X , then Y ."

In common usage, a hypothesis is simply a proposed explanation or prediction, which may or may not be tested.

Writing a Hypothesis

Most scientific hypotheses are proposed in the if-then format because it's easy to design an experiment to see whether or not a cause and effect relationship exists between the independent variable and the dependent variable . The hypothesis is written as a prediction of the outcome of the experiment.

• Null Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis

Statistically, it's easier to show there is no relationship between two variables than to support their connection. So, scientists often propose the null hypothesis . The null hypothesis assumes changing the independent variable will have no effect on the dependent variable.

In contrast, the alternative hypothesis suggests changing the independent variable will have an effect on the dependent variable. Designing an experiment to test this hypothesis can be trickier because there are many ways to state an alternative hypothesis.

For example, consider a possible relationship between getting a good night's sleep and getting good grades. The null hypothesis might be stated: "The number of hours of sleep students get is unrelated to their grades" or "There is no correlation between hours of sleep and grades."

An experiment to test this hypothesis might involve collecting data, recording average hours of sleep for each student and grades. If a student who gets eight hours of sleep generally does better than students who get four hours of sleep or 10 hours of sleep, the hypothesis might be rejected.

But the alternative hypothesis is harder to propose and test. The most general statement would be: "The amount of sleep students get affects their grades." The hypothesis might also be stated as "If you get more sleep, your grades will improve" or "Students who get nine hours of sleep have better grades than those who get more or less sleep."

In an experiment, you can collect the same data, but the statistical analysis is less likely to give you a high confidence limit.

Usually, a scientist starts out with the null hypothesis. From there, it may be possible to propose and test an alternative hypothesis, to narrow down the relationship between the variables.

Example of a Hypothesis

Examples of a hypothesis include:

• If you drop a rock and a feather, (then) they will fall at the same rate.
• Plants need sunlight in order to live. (if sunlight, then life)
• Eating sugar gives you energy. (if sugar, then energy)
• White, Jay D.  Research in Public Administration . Conn., 1998.
• Schick, Theodore, and Lewis Vaughn.  How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age . McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2002.
• Null Hypothesis Definition and Examples
• Definition of a Hypothesis
• What Are the Elements of a Good Hypothesis?
• Six Steps of the Scientific Method
• What Are Examples of a Hypothesis?
• Understanding Simple vs Controlled Experiments
• Scientific Method Flow Chart
• Scientific Method Vocabulary Terms
• What Is a Testable Hypothesis?
• Null Hypothesis Examples
• What 'Fail to Reject' Means in a Hypothesis Test
• How To Design a Science Fair Experiment
• What Is an Experiment? Definition and Design
• Hypothesis Test for the Difference of Two Population Proportions
• How to Conduct a Hypothesis Test

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101
• Misconceptions

The Scientific Method, as presented in many textbooks, is oversimplified.

Misconception:  There is a single Scientific Method that all scientists follow.

Correction:  The Scientific Method is an oversimplified representation of what is really a rich, complex, and unpredictable process.  Read more about it.

How science works

The Scientific Method is traditionally presented in the first chapter of science textbooks as a simple recipe for performing scientific investigations. Though many useful points are embodied in this method, it can easily be misinterpreted as linear and “cookbook”: pull a problem off the shelf, throw in an observation , mix in a few questions, sprinkle on a hypothesis , put the whole mixture into a 350° experiment — and voila , 50 minutes later you’ll be pulling a conclusion out of the oven! That might work if science were like Hamburger Helper®, but science is complex and cannot be reduced to a single, prepackaged recipe.

The linear, stepwise representation of the process of science is oversimplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence . However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact — in textbooks and journal articles — than how science is actually done.

The simplified, linear description of the scientific method implies that scientific studies follow an unvarying, linear recipe … but in reality, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences in their work.

The simplified, linear description of the scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation … but in reality, science depends on social interactions within the scientific community. Different parts of the process of science may be carried out by different people at different times.

The simplified, linear description of the scientific method implies that science has little room for creativity … but in reality, the process of science is exciting, dynamic, and unpredictable. Science relies on creative people thinking outside the box!

The simplified, linear description of the scientific method implies that science concludes … but in reality, scientific conclusions are always revisable if warranted by the evidence. Scientific investigations are often ongoing, raising new questions even as old ones are answered.

Here, we’ll examine a more accurate representation of the process of science. You can investigate:

The real process of science

• Testing scientific ideas
• Analysis within the scientific community
• Benefits of science
• Science at multiple levels

Or just click the Next button to dive right in!

• Take a sidetrip

The Scientific Method emphasizes testing ideas with evidence — but just  how  does science do this? To learn more, visit our unit on  The core of science: Relating evidence and ideas .

Science in sum

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool

Sciencing_Icons_Science SCIENCE

Sciencing_icons_biology biology, sciencing_icons_cells cells, sciencing_icons_molecular molecular, sciencing_icons_microorganisms microorganisms, sciencing_icons_genetics genetics, sciencing_icons_human body human body, sciencing_icons_ecology ecology, sciencing_icons_chemistry chemistry, sciencing_icons_atomic &amp; molecular structure atomic & molecular structure, sciencing_icons_bonds bonds, sciencing_icons_reactions reactions, sciencing_icons_stoichiometry stoichiometry, sciencing_icons_solutions solutions, sciencing_icons_acids &amp; bases acids & bases, sciencing_icons_thermodynamics thermodynamics, sciencing_icons_organic chemistry organic chemistry, sciencing_icons_physics physics, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-physics fundamentals, sciencing_icons_electronics electronics, sciencing_icons_waves waves, sciencing_icons_energy energy, sciencing_icons_fluid fluid, sciencing_icons_astronomy astronomy, sciencing_icons_geology geology, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geology fundamentals, sciencing_icons_minerals &amp; rocks minerals & rocks, sciencing_icons_earth scructure earth structure, sciencing_icons_fossils fossils, sciencing_icons_natural disasters natural disasters, sciencing_icons_nature nature, sciencing_icons_ecosystems ecosystems, sciencing_icons_environment environment, sciencing_icons_insects insects, sciencing_icons_plants &amp; mushrooms plants & mushrooms, sciencing_icons_animals animals, sciencing_icons_math math, sciencing_icons_arithmetic arithmetic, sciencing_icons_addition &amp; subtraction addition & subtraction, sciencing_icons_multiplication &amp; division multiplication & division, sciencing_icons_decimals decimals, sciencing_icons_fractions fractions, sciencing_icons_conversions conversions, sciencing_icons_algebra algebra, sciencing_icons_working with units working with units, sciencing_icons_equations &amp; expressions equations & expressions, sciencing_icons_ratios &amp; proportions ratios & proportions, sciencing_icons_inequalities inequalities, sciencing_icons_exponents &amp; logarithms exponents & logarithms, sciencing_icons_factorization factorization, sciencing_icons_functions functions, sciencing_icons_linear equations linear equations, sciencing_icons_graphs graphs, sciencing_icons_quadratics quadratics, sciencing_icons_polynomials polynomials, sciencing_icons_geometry geometry, sciencing_icons_fundamentals-geometry fundamentals, sciencing_icons_cartesian cartesian, sciencing_icons_circles circles, sciencing_icons_solids solids, sciencing_icons_trigonometry trigonometry, sciencing_icons_probability-statistics probability & statistics, sciencing_icons_mean-median-mode mean/median/mode, sciencing_icons_independent-dependent variables independent/dependent variables, sciencing_icons_deviation deviation, sciencing_icons_correlation correlation, sciencing_icons_sampling sampling, sciencing_icons_distributions distributions, sciencing_icons_probability probability, sciencing_icons_calculus calculus, sciencing_icons_differentiation-integration differentiation/integration, sciencing_icons_application application, sciencing_icons_projects projects, sciencing_icons_news news.

• Share Tweet Email Print
• Home ⋅
• Science Fair Project Ideas for Kids, Middle & High School Students ⋅

How to Write Conclusions for Science Projects

8 Parts of Science Fair Projects

Performing an experiment and collecting data is only part of a science project -- you must also present that data in a project report. This paper tells readers about your hypothesis, method and results, but it’s not complete until you summarize what you discovered through your experiment. Your conclusion is one of the most important parts of your project. It shows readers what you learned and why it’s important.

Answering Questions

In the beginning of your project report, you probably asked a question, which led you to hypothesize that a particular result would happen through an experiment. In the conclusion, you answer this question. For example, if you asked, “What makes one bubble solution better than another?” you could have hypothesized that glycerin solution would produce better bubbles than regular dish soap. Begin your conclusion by restating this question and hypothesis. This opening of the conclusion, which should be two to three sentences long, reminds readers about your research question and provides a segue into discussing your results.

Summarizing Results

Ask yourself what happened when you tested your hypothesis -- whether your experiment supported or contradicted your guess about what would happen. In the next part of your conclusion, tell the reader whether or not your hypothesis was correct based on your experiment results. You could write, “The experimental data confirmed my hypothesis because the glycerin solution produced bubbles nearly twice as large as the dish soap solution.” While this section makes up the bulk of your conclusion, you want to summarize your results in as few sentences as possible because you assume your audience has already read the full discussion of your results previously in your paper. This summary serves to remind the reader about key results and to clearly and concisely say whether your hypothesis was proved correct or incorrect.

What You Learned

Tell your readers about the success of your experiment. Even if your hypothesis was disproved, you discovered something new. In a couple sentences, point out the importance of your research or how your findings could benefit other budding scientists. For example, write, “Through this experiment, I learned that glycerin solutions produce better bubbles than dish soap. My results suggest that glycerin is an ideal additive to bubble solution.”

Recommendations

Consider whether your project had any shortcomings or if there would be a way to change the procedure to make it more efficient or accurate. Not all methods are perfect in science projects, so finish your conclusion with recommendations for replicating your experiment, in one paragraph or less. For example, if you used a pipe cleaner as a bubble wand in your experiment, suggest trying other materials to determine whether the wand makes a difference in the results. Also ask yourself whether your project left some questions unanswered, and suggest ideas for future research.

Related Articles

Writing objectives for lab reports, how to write results for a science fair project, the six parts of an experimental science project, how to make a science fair project journal, how to write an objective for a project, how to write a summary on a science project, how to do a 2nd grade science project, how to do a science project step-by-step, classic science at home: elephant toothpaste, what are the 8 steps in scientific research, how to choose the right science fair project for you, science projects on bubbleology, preschool blubber experiment, how to make a volcano out of cardboard, elements of a science project, how to report a sample size, how to do a science fair project logbook, ideas for kid inventions, osmosis experiments with gummy bears.

• Discovery Education: Project Report: Conclusion
• Science Buddies: Conclusions
• Explorable: Writing a Conclusion

About the Author

Cara Batema is a musician, teacher and writer who specializes in early childhood, special needs and psychology. Since 2010, Batema has been an active writer in the fields of education, parenting, science and health. She holds a bachelor's degree in music therapy and creative writing.

Find Your Next Great Science Fair Project! GO

We Have More Great Sciencing Articles!

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Microb Biotechnol
• v.15(11); 2022 Nov

On the role of hypotheses in science

Harald brüssow.

1 Laboratory of Gene Technology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven Belgium

Associated Data

Scientific research progresses by the dialectic dialogue between hypothesis building and the experimental testing of these hypotheses. Microbiologists as biologists in general can rely on an increasing set of sophisticated experimental methods for hypothesis testing such that many scientists maintain that progress in biology essentially comes with new experimental tools. While this is certainly true, the importance of hypothesis building in science should not be neglected. Some scientists rely on intuition for hypothesis building. However, there is also a large body of philosophical thinking on hypothesis building whose knowledge may be of use to young scientists. The present essay presents a primer into philosophical thoughts on hypothesis building and illustrates it with two hypotheses that played a major role in the history of science (the parallel axiom and the fifth element hypothesis). It continues with philosophical concepts on hypotheses as a calculus that fits observations (Copernicus), the need for plausibility (Descartes and Gilbert) and for explicatory power imposing a strong selection on theories (Darwin, James and Dewey). Galilei introduced and James and Poincaré later justified the reductionist principle in hypothesis building. Waddington stressed the feed‐forward aspect of fruitful hypothesis building, while Poincaré called for a dialogue between experiment and hypothesis and distinguished false, true, fruitful and dangerous hypotheses. Theoretical biology plays a much lesser role than theoretical physics because physical thinking strives for unification principle across the universe while biology is confronted with a breathtaking diversity of life forms and its historical development on a single planet. Knowledge of the philosophical foundations on hypothesis building in science might stimulate more hypothesis‐driven experimentation that simple observation‐oriented “fishing expeditions” in biological research.

Short abstract

Scientific research progresses by the dialectic dialogue between hypothesis building and the experimental testing of these hypotheses. Microbiologists can rely on an increasing set of sophisticated experimental methods for hypothesis testing but the importance of hypothesis building in science should not be neglected. This Lilliput offers a primer on philosophical concepts on hypotheses in science.

INTRODUCTION

Philosophy of science and the theory of knowledge (epistemology) are important branches of philosophy. However, philosophy has over the centuries lost its dominant role it enjoyed in antiquity and became in Medieval Ages the maid of theology (ancilla theologiae) and after the rise of natural sciences and its technological applications many practising scientists and the general public doubt whether they need philosophical concepts in their professional and private life. This is in the opinion of the writer of this article, an applied microbiologist, shortsighted for several reasons. Philosophers of the 20th century have made important contributions to the theory of knowledge, and many eminent scientists grew interested in philosophical problems. Mathematics which plays such a prominent role in physics and increasingly also in other branches of science is a hybrid: to some extent, it is the paradigm of an exact science while its abstract aspects are deeply rooted in philosophical thinking. In the present essay, the focus is on hypothesis and hypothesis building in science, essentially it is a compilation what philosophers and scientists thought about this subject in past and present. The controversy between the mathematical mind and that of the practical mind is an old one. The philosopher, physicist and mathematician Pascal ( 1623 –1662a) wrote in his Pensées : “Mathematicians who are only mathematicians have exact minds, provided all things are explained to them by means of definitions and axioms; otherwise they are inaccurate. They are only right when the principles are quite clear. And men of intuition cannot have the patience to reach to first principles of things speculative and conceptional, which they have never seen in the world and which are altogether out of the common. The intellect can be strong and narrow, and can be comprehensive and weak.” Hypothesis building is an act both of intuition and exact thinking and I hope that theoretical knowledge about hypothesis building will also profit young microbiologists.

HYPOTHESES AND AXIOMS IN MATHEMATICS

In the following, I will illustrate the importance of hypothesis building for the history of science and the development of knowledge and illustrate it with two famous concepts, the parallel axiom in mathematics and the five elements hypothesis in physics.

Euclidean geometry

The prominent role of hypotheses in the development of science becomes already clear in the first science book of the Western civilization: Euclid's The Elements written about 300 BC starts with a set of statements called Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions that lay out the foundation of geometry (Euclid,  c.323‐c.283 ). This axiomatic approach is very modern as exemplified by the fact that Euclid's book remained for long time after the Bible the most read book in the Western hemisphere and a backbone of school teaching in mathematics. Euclid's twenty‐three definitions start with sentences such as “1. A point is that which has no part; 2. A line is breadthless length; 3. The extremities of a line are points”; and continues with the definition of angles (“8. A plane angle is the inclination to one another of two lines in a plane which meet one another and do not lie in a straight line”) and that of circles, triangles and quadrilateral figures. For the history of science, the 23rd definition of parallels is particularly interesting: “Parallel straight lines are straight lines which, being in the same plane and being produced indefinitely in both directions, do not meet one another in either direction”. This is the famous parallel axiom. It is clear that the parallel axiom cannot be the result of experimental observations, but must be a concept created in the mind. Euclid ends with five Common Notions (“1. Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another, to 5. The whole is greater than the part”). The establishment of a contradiction‐free system for a branch of mathematics based on a set of axioms from which theorems were deduced was revolutionary modern. Hilbert ( 1899 ) formulated a sound modern formulation for Euclidian geometry. Hilbert's axiom system contains the notions “point, line and plane” and the concepts of “betweenness, containment and congruence” leading to five axioms, namely the axioms of Incidence (“Verknüpfung”), of Order (“Anordnung”), of Congruence, of Continuity (“Stetigkeit”) and of Parallels.

Origin of axioms

Philosophers gave various explanations for the origin of the Euclidean hypotheses or axioms. Plato considered geometrical figures as related to ideas (the true things behind the world of appearances). Aristoteles considered geometric figures as abstractions of physical bodies. Descartes perceived geometric figures as inborn ideas from extended bodies ( res extensa ), while Pascal thought that the axioms of Euclidian geometry were derived from intuition. Kant reasoned that Euclidian geometry represented a priori perceptions of space. Newton considered geometry as part of general mechanics linked to theories of measurement. Hilbert argued that the axioms of mathematical geometry are neither the result of contemplation (“Anschauung”) nor of psychological source. For him, axioms were formal propositions (“formale Aussageformen”) characterized by consistency (“Widerspruchsfreiheit”, i.e. absence of contradiction) (Mittelstrass,  1980a ).

Definitions

Axioms were also differently defined by philosophers. In Topics , Aristoteles calls axioms the assumptions taken up by one partner of a dialogue to initiate a dialectic discussion. Plato states that an axiom needs to be an acceptable or credible proposition, which cannot be justified by reference to other statements. Yet, a justification is not necessary because an axiom is an evident statement. In modern definition, axioms are methodical first sentences in the foundation of a deductive science (Mittelstrass,  1980a ). In Posterior Analytics , Aristotle defines postulates as positions which are at least initially not accepted by the dialogue partners while hypotheses are accepted for the sake of reasoning. In Euclid's book, postulates are construction methods that assure the existence of the geometric objects. Today postulates and axioms are used as synonyms while the 18th‐century philosophy made differences: Lambert defined axioms as descriptive sentences and postulates as prescriptive sentences. According to Kant, mathematical postulates create (synthesize) concepts (Mittelstrass,  1980b ). Definitions then fix the use of signs; they can be semantic definitions that explain the proper meaning of a sign in common language use (in a dictionary style) or they can be syntactic definitions that regulate the use of these signs in formal operations. Nominal definitions explain the words, while real definitions explain the meaning or the nature of the defined object. Definitions are thus essential for the development of a language of science, assuring communication and mutual understanding (Mittelstrass,  1980c ). Finally, hypotheses are also frequently defined as consistent conjectures that are compatible with the available knowledge. The truth of the hypothesis is only supposed in order to explain true observations and facts. Consequences of this hypothetical assumptions should explain the observed facts. Normally, descriptive hypotheses precede explanatory hypotheses in the development of scientific thought. Sometimes only tentative concepts are introduced as working hypotheses to test whether they have an explanatory capacity for the observations (Mittelstrass,  1980d ).

The Euclidian geometry is constructed along a logical “if→then” concept. The “if‐clause” formulates at the beginning the supposition, the “then clause” formulates the consequences from these axioms which provides a system of geometric theorems or insights. The conclusions do not follow directly from the hypothesis; this would otherwise represent self‐evident immediate conclusions. The “if‐then” concept in geometry is not used as in other branches of science where the consequences deduced from the axioms are checked against reality whether they are true, in order to confirm the validity of the hypothesis. The task in mathematics is: what can be logically deduced from a given set of axioms to build a contradiction‐free system of geometry. Whether this applies to the real world is in contrast to the situation in natural sciences another question and absolutely secondary to mathematics (Syntopicon,  1992 ).

Pascal's rules for hypotheses

In his Scientific Treatises on Geometric Demonstrations , Pascal ( 1623‐1662b ) formulates “Five rules are absolutely necessary and we cannot dispense with them without an essential defect and frequently even error. Do not leave undefined any terms at all obscure or ambiguous. Use in definitions of terms only words perfectly well known or already explained. Do not fail to ask that each of the necessary principles be granted, however clear and evident it may be. Ask only that perfectly self‐evident things be granted as axioms. Prove all propositions, using for their proof only axioms that are perfectly self‐evident or propositions already demonstrated or granted. Never get caught in the ambiguity of terms by failing to substitute in thought the definitions which restrict or define them. One should accept as true only those things whose contradiction appears to be false. We may then boldly affirm the original statement, however incomprehensible it is.”

Kant's rules on hypotheses

Kant ( 1724–1804 ) wrote that the analysis described in his book The Critique of Pure Reason “has now taught us that all its efforts to extend the bounds of knowledge by means of pure speculation, are utterly fruitless. So much the wider field lies open to hypothesis; as where we cannot know with certainty, we are at liberty to make guesses and to form suppositions. Imagination may be allowed, under the strict surveillance of reason, to invent suppositions; but these must be based on something that is perfectly certain‐ and that is the possibility of the object. Such a supposition is termed a hypothesis. We cannot imagine or invent any object or any property of an object not given in experience and employ it in a hypothesis; otherwise we should be basing our chain of reasoning upon mere chimerical fancies and not upon conception of things. Thus, we have no right to assume of new powers, not existing in nature and consequently we cannot assume that there is any other kind of community among substances than that observable in experience, any kind of presence than that in space and any kind of duration than that in time. The conditions of possible experience are for reason the only conditions of the possibility of things. Otherwise, such conceptions, although not self‐contradictory, are without object and without application. Transcendental hypotheses are therefore inadmissible, and we cannot use the liberty of employing in the absence of physical, hyperphysical grounds of explanation because such hypotheses do not advance reason, but rather stop it in its progress. When the explanation of natural phenomena happens to be difficult, we have constantly at hand a transcendental ground of explanation, which lifts us above the necessity of investigating nature. The next requisite for the admissibility of a hypothesis is its sufficiency. That is it must determine a priori the consequences which are given in experience and which are supposed to follow from the hypothesis itself.” Kant stresses another aspect when dealing with hypotheses: “It is our duty to try to discover new objections, to put weapons in the hands of our opponent, and to grant him the most favorable position. We have nothing to fear from these concessions; on the contrary, we may rather hope that we shall thus make ourselves master of a possession which no one will ever venture to dispute.”

For Kant's analytical and synthetical judgements and Difference between philosophy and mathematics (Kant, Whitehead) , see Appendices  S1 and S2 , respectively.

Poincaré on hypotheses

The mathematician‐philosopher Poincaré ( 1854 –1912a) explored the foundation of mathematics and physics in his book Science and Hypothesis . In the preface to the book, he summarizes common thinking of scientists at the end of the 19th century. “To the superficial observer scientific truth is unassailable, the logic of science is infallible, and if scientific men sometimes make mistakes, it is because they have not understood the rules of the game. Mathematical truths are derived from a few self‐evident propositions, by a chain of flawless reasoning, they are imposed not only by us, but on Nature itself. This is for the minds of most people the origin of certainty in science.” Poincaré then continues “but upon more mature reflection the position held by hypothesis was seen; it was recognized that it is as necessary to the experimenter as it is to the mathematician. And then the doubt arose if all these constructions are built on solid foundations.” However, “to doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions: both dispense with the necessity of reflection. Instead, we should examine with the utmost care the role of hypothesis; we shall then recognize not only that it is necessary, but that in most cases it is legitimate. We shall also see that there are several kinds of hypotheses; that some are verifiable and when once confirmed by experiment become truths of great fertility; that others may be useful to us in fixing our ideas; and finally that others are hypotheses only in appearance, and reduce to definitions or to conventions in disguise.” Poincaré argues that “we must seek mathematical thought where it has remained pure‐i.e. in arithmetic, in the proofs of the most elementary theorems. The process is proof by recurrence. We first show that a theorem is true for n  = 1; we then show that if it is true for n –1 it is true for n; and we conclude that it is true for all integers. The essential characteristic of reasoning by recurrence is that it contains, condensed in a single formula, an infinite number of syllogisms.” Syllogism is logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion. Poincaré notes “that here is a striking analogy with the usual process of induction. But an essential difference exists. Induction applied to the physical sciences is always uncertain because it is based on the belief in a general order of the universe, an order which is external to us. Mathematical induction‐ i.e. proof by recurrence – is on the contrary, necessarily imposed on us, because it is only the affirmation of a property of the mind itself. No doubt mathematical recurrent reasoning and physical inductive reasoning are based on different foundations, but they move in parallel lines and in the same direction‐namely, from the particular to the general.”

Non‐Euclidian geometry: from Gauss to Lobatschewsky

Mathematics is an abstract science that intrinsically does not request that the structures described reflect a physical reality. Paradoxically, mathematics is the language of physics since the founder of experimental physics Galilei used Euclidian geometry when exploring the laws of the free fall. In his 1623 treatise The Assayer , Galilei ( 1564 –1642a) famously formulated that the book of Nature is written in the language of mathematics, thus establishing a link between formal concepts in mathematics and the structure of the physical world. Euclid's parallel axiom played historically a prominent role for the connection between mathematical concepts and physical realities. Mathematicians had doubted that the parallel axiom was needed and tried to prove it. In Euclidian geometry, there is a connection between the parallel axiom and the sum of the angles in a triangle being two right angles. It is therefore revealing that the famous mathematician C.F. Gauss investigated in the early 19th century experimentally whether this Euclidian theorem applies in nature. He approached this problem by measuring the sum of angles in a real triangle by using geodetic angle measurements of three geographical elevations in the vicinity of Göttingen where he was teaching mathematics. He reportedly measured a sum of the angles in this triangle that differed from 180°. Gauss had at the same time also developed statistical methods to evaluate the accuracy of measurements. Apparently, the difference of his measured angles was still within the interval of Gaussian error propagation. He did not publish the reasoning and the results for this experiment because he feared the outcry of colleagues about this unorthodox, even heretical approach to mathematical reasoning (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970a). However, soon afterwards non‐Euclidian geometries were developed. In the words of Poincaré, “Lobatschewsky assumes at the outset that several parallels may be drawn through a point to a given straight line, and he retains all the other axioms of Euclid. From these hypotheses he deduces a series of theorems between which it is impossible to find any contradiction, and he constructs a geometry as impeccable in its logic as Euclidian geometry. The theorems are very different, however, from those to which we are accustomed, and at first will be found a little disconcerting. For instance, the sum of the angles of a triangle is always less than two right angles, and the difference between that sum and two right angles is proportional to the area of the triangle. Lobatschewsky's propositions have no relation to those of Euclid, but are none the less logically interconnected.” Poincaré continues “most mathematicians regard Lobatschewsky's geometry as a mere logical curiosity. Some of them have, however, gone further. If several geometries are possible, they say, is it certain that our geometry is true? Experiments no doubt teaches us that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, but this is because the triangles we deal with are too small” (Poincaré,  1854 ‐1912a)—hence the importance of Gauss' geodetic triangulation experiment. Gauss was aware that his three hills experiment was too small and thought on measurements on triangles formed with stars.

Poincaré vs. Einstein

Lobatschewsky's hyperbolic geometry did not remain the only non‐Euclidian geometry. Riemann developed a geometry without the parallel axiom, while the other Euclidian axioms were maintained with the exception of that of Order (Anordnung). Poincaré notes “so there is a kind of opposition between the geometries. For instance the sum of the angles in a triangle is equal to two right angles in Euclid's geometry, less than two right angles in that of Lobatschewsky, and greater than two right angles in that of Riemann. The number of parallel lines that can be drawn through a given point to a given line is one in Euclid's geometry, none in Riemann's, and an infinite number in the geometry of Lobatschewsky. Let us add that Riemann's space is finite, although unbounded.” As further distinction, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is equal to π in Euclid's, greater than π in Lobatschewsky's and smaller than π in Riemann's geometry. A further difference between these geometries concerns the degree of curvature (Krümmungsmass k) which is 0 for a Euclidian surface, smaller than 0 for a Lobatschewsky and greater than 0 for a Riemann surface. The difference in curvature can be roughly compared with plane, concave and convex surfaces. The inner geometric structure of a Riemann plane resembles the surface structure of a Euclidean sphere and a Lobatschewsky plane resembles that of a Euclidean pseudosphere (a negatively curved geometry of a saddle). What geometry is true? Poincaré asked “Ought we then, to conclude that the axioms of geometry are experimental truths?” and continues “If geometry were an experimental science, it would not be an exact science. The geometric axioms are therefore neither synthetic a priori intuitions as affirmed by Kant nor experimental facts. They are conventions. Our choice among all possible conventions is guided by experimental facts; but it remains free and is only limited by the necessity of avoiding contradictions. In other words, the axioms of geometry are only definitions in disguise. What then are we to think of the question: Is Euclidean geometry true? It has no meaning. One geometry cannot be more true than another, it can only be more convenient. Now, Euclidean geometry is, and will remain, the most convenient, 1 st because it is the simplest and 2 nd because it sufficiently agrees with the properties of natural bodies” (Poincaré,  1854 ‐1912a).

Poincaré's book was published in 1903 and only a few years later Einstein published his general theory of relativity ( 1916 ) where he used a non‐Euclidean, Riemann geometry and where he demonstrated a structure of space that deviated from Euclidean geometry in the vicinity of strong gravitational fields. And in 1919, astronomical observations during a solar eclipse showed that light rays from a distant star were indeed “bent” when passing next to the sun. These physical observations challenged the view of Poincaré, and we should now address some aspects of hypotheses in physics (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970b).

HYPOTHESES IN PHYSICS

The long life of the five elements hypothesis.

Physical sciences—not to speak of biological sciences — were less developed in antiquity than mathematics which is already demonstrated by the primitive ideas on the elements constituting physical bodies. Plato and Aristotle spoke of the four elements which they took over from Thales (water), Anaximenes (air) and Parmenides (fire and earth) and add a fifth element (quinta essentia, our quintessence), namely ether. Ether is imagined a heavenly element belonging to the supralunar world. In Plato's dialogue Timaios (Plato,  c.424‐c.348 BC a ), the five elements were associated with regular polyhedra in geometry and became known as Platonic bodies: tetrahedron (fire), octahedron (air), cube (earth), icosahedron (water) and dodecahedron (ether). In regular polyhedra, faces are congruent (identical in shape and size), all angles and all edges are congruent, and the same number of faces meet at each vertex. The number of elements is limited to five because in Euclidian space there are exactly five regular polyhedral. There is in Plato's writing even a kind of geometrical chemistry. Since two octahedra (air) plus one tetrahedron (fire) can be combined into one icosahedron (water), these “liquid” elements can combine while this is not the case for combinations with the cube (earth). The 12 faces of the dodecahedron were compared with the 12 zodiac signs (Mittelstrass,  1980e ). This geometry‐based hypothesis of physics had a long life. As late as 1612, Kepler in his Mysterium cosmographicum tried to fit the Platonic bodies into the planetary shells of his solar system model. The ether theory even survived into the scientific discussion of the 19th‐century physics and the idea of a mathematical structure of the universe dominated by symmetry operations even fertilized 20th‐century ideas about symmetry concepts in the physics of elementary particles.

Huygens on sound waves in air

The ether hypothesis figures prominently in the 1690 Treatise on Light from Huygens ( 1617‐1670 ). He first reports on the transmission of sound by air when writing “this may be proved by shutting up a sounding body in a glass vessel from which the air is withdrawn and care was taken to place the sounding body on cotton that it cannot communicate its tremor to the glass vessel which encloses it. After having exhausted all the air, one hears no sound from the metal though it is struck.” Huygens comes up with some foresight when suspecting “the air is of such a nature that it can be compressed and reduced to a much smaller space than that it normally occupies. Air is made up of small bodies which float about and which are agitated very rapidly. So that the spreading of sound is the effort which these little bodies make in collisions with one another, to regain freedom when they are a little more squeezed together in the circuit of these waves than elsewhere.”

Huygens on light waves in ether

“That is not the same air but another kind of matter in which light spreads; since if the air is removed from the vessel the light does not cease to traverse it as before. The extreme velocity of light cannot admit such a propagation of motion” as sound waves. To achieve the propagation of light, Huygens invokes ether “as a substance approaching to perfect hardness and possessing springiness as prompt as we choose. One may conceive light to spread successively by spherical waves. The propagation consists nowise in the transport of those particles but merely in a small agitation which they cannot help communicate to those surrounding.” The hypothesis of an ether in outer space fills libraries of physical discussions, but all experimental approaches led to contradictions with respect to postulated properties of this hypothetical material for example when optical experiments showed that light waves display transversal and not longitudinal oscillations.

The demise of ether

Mechanical models for the transmission of light or gravitation waves requiring ether were finally put to rest by the theory of relativity from Einstein (Mittelstrass,  1980f ). This theory posits that the speed of light in an empty space is constant and does not depend on movements of the source of light or that of an observer as requested by the ether hypothesis. The theory of relativity also provides an answer how the force of gravitation is transmitted from one mass to another across an essentially empty space. In the non‐Euclidian formulation of the theory of relativity (Einstein used the Riemann geometry), there is no gravitation force in the sense of mechanical or electromagnetic forces. The gravitation force is in this formulation simply replaced by a geometric structure (space curvature near high and dense masses) of a four‐dimensional space–time system (Carnap,  1891 ‐1970c; Einstein & Imfeld,  1956 ) Gravitation waves and gravitation lens effects have indeed been experimental demonstrated by astrophysicists (Dorfmüller et al.,  1998 ).

For Aristotle's on physical hypotheses , see Appendix  S3 .

PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHTS ON HYPOTHESES

In the following, the opinions of a number of famous scientists and philosophers on hypotheses are quoted to provide a historical overview on the subject.

Copernicus' hypothesis: a calculus which fits observations

In his book Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres Copernicus ( 1473–1543 ) reasoned in the preface about hypotheses in physics. “Since the newness of the hypotheses of this work ‐which sets the earth in motion and puts an immovable sun at the center of the universe‐ has already received a great deal of publicity, I have no doubt that certain of the savants have taken great offense.” He defended his heliocentric thesis by stating “For it is the job of the astronomer to use painstaking and skilled observations in gathering together the history of the celestial movements‐ and then – since he cannot by any line of reasoning reach the true causes of these movements‐ to think up or construct whatever causes or hypotheses he pleases such that, by the assumption of these causes, those same movements can be calculated from the principles of geometry for the past and the future too. This artist is markedly outstanding in both of these respects: for it is not necessary that these hypotheses should be true, or even probable; but it is enough if they provide a calculus which fits the observations.” This preface written in 1543 sounds in its arguments very modern physics. However, historians of science have discovered that it was probably written by a theologian friend of Copernicus to defend the book against the criticism by the church.

Bacon's intermediate hypotheses

In his book Novum Organum , Francis Bacon ( 1561–1626 ) claims for hypotheses and scientific reasoning “that they augur well for the sciences, when the ascent shall proceed by a true scale and successive steps, without interruption or breach, from particulars to the lesser axioms, thence to the intermediates and lastly to the most general.” He then notes “that the lowest axioms differ but little from bare experiments, the highest and most general are notional, abstract, and of no real weight. The intermediate are true, solid, full of life, and up to them depend the business and fortune of mankind.” He warns that “we must not then add wings, but rather lead and ballast to the understanding, to prevent its jumping and flying, which has not yet been done; but whenever this takes place we may entertain greater hopes of the sciences.” With respect to methodology, Bacon claims that “we must invent a different form of induction. The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration is puerile, leads to uncertain conclusions, …deciding generally from too small a number of facts. Sciences should separate nature by proper rejections and exclusions and then conclude for the affirmative, after collecting a sufficient number of negatives.”

Gilbert and Descartes for plausible hypotheses

William Gilbert introduced in his book On the Loadstone (Gilbert,  1544‐1603 ) the argument of plausibility into physical hypothesis building. “From these arguments, therefore, we infer not with mere probability, but with certainty, the diurnal rotation of the earth; for nature ever acts with fewer than with many means; and because it is more accordant to reason that the one small body, the earth, should make a daily revolution than the whole universe should be whirled around it.”

Descartes ( 1596‐1650 ) reflected on the sources of understanding in his book Rules for Direction and distinguished what “comes about by impulse, by conjecture, or by deduction. Impulse can assign no reason for their belief and when determined by fanciful disposition, it is almost always a source of error.” When speaking about the working of conjectures he quotes thoughts of Aristotle: “water which is at a greater distance from the center of the globe than earth is likewise less dense substance, and likewise the air which is above the water, is still rarer. Hence, we hazard the guess that above the air nothing exists but a very pure ether which is much rarer than air itself. Moreover nothing that we construct in this way really deceives, if we merely judge it to be probable and never affirm it to be true; in fact it makes us better instructed. Deduction is thus left to us as the only means of putting things together so as to be sure of their truth. Yet in it, too, there may be many defects.”

Care in formulating hypotheses

Locke ( 1632‐1704 ) in his treatise Concerning Human Understanding admits that “we may make use of any probable hypotheses whatsoever. Hypotheses if they are well made are at least great helps to the memory and often direct us to new discoveries. However, we should not take up any one too hastily.” Also, practising scientists argued against careless use of hypotheses and proposed remedies. Lavoisier ( 1743‐1794 ) in the preface to his Element of Chemistry warned about beaten‐track hypotheses. “Instead of applying observation to the things we wished to know, we have chosen rather to imagine them. Advancing from one ill‐founded supposition to another, we have at last bewildered ourselves amidst a multitude of errors. These errors becoming prejudices, are adopted as principles and we thus bewilder ourselves more and more. We abuse words which we do not understand. There is but one remedy: this is to forget all that we have learned, to trace back our ideas to their sources and as Bacon says to frame the human understanding anew.”

Faraday ( 1791–1867 ) in a Speculation Touching Electric Conduction and the Nature of Matter highlighted the fundamental difference between hypotheses and facts when noting “that he has most power of penetrating the secrets of nature, and guessing by hypothesis at her mode of working, will also be most careful for his own safe progress and that of others, to distinguish that knowledge which consists of assumption, by which I mean theory and hypothesis, from that which is the knowledge of facts and laws; never raising the former to the dignity or authority of the latter.”

Explicatory power justifies hypotheses

Darwin ( 1809 –1882a) defended the conclusions and hypothesis of his book The Origin of Species “that species have been modified in a long course of descent. This has been affected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous, slight, favorable variations.” He uses a post hoc argument for this hypothesis: “It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, to so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts” described in his book.

The natural selection of hypotheses

In the concluding chapter of The Descent of Man Darwin ( 1809 –1882b) admits “that many of the views which have been advanced in this book are highly speculative and some no doubt will prove erroneous.” However, he distinguished that “false facts are highly injurious to the progress of science for they often endure long; but false views do little harm for everyone takes a salutory pleasure in proving their falseness; and when this is done, one path to error is closed and the road to truth is often at the same time opened.”

The American philosopher William James ( 1842–1907 ) concurred with Darwin's view when he wrote in his Principles of Psychology “every scientific conception is in the first instance a spontaneous variation in someone'’s brain. For one that proves useful and applicable there are a thousand that perish through their worthlessness. The scientific conceptions must prove their worth by being verified. This test, however, is the cause of their preservation, not of their production.”

The American philosopher J. Dewey ( 1859‐1952 ) in his treatise Experience and Education notes that “the experimental method of science attaches more importance not less to ideas than do other methods. There is no such thing as experiment in the scientific sense unless action is directed by some leading idea. The fact that the ideas employed are hypotheses, not final truths, is the reason why ideas are more jealously guarded and tested in science than anywhere else. As fixed truths they must be accepted and that is the end of the matter. But as hypotheses, they must be continuously tested and revised, a requirement that demands they be accurately formulated. Ideas or hypotheses are tested by the consequences which they produce when they are acted upon. The method of intelligence manifested in the experimental method demands keeping track of ideas, activities, and observed consequences. Keeping track is a matter of reflective review.”

The reductionist principle

James ( 1842‐1907 ) pushed this idea further when saying “Scientific thought goes by selection. We break the solid plenitude of fact into separate essences, conceive generally what only exists particularly, and by our classifications leave nothing in its natural neighborhood. The reality exists as a plenum. All its part are contemporaneous, but we can neither experience nor think this plenum. What we experience is a chaos of fragmentary impressions, what we think is an abstract system of hypothetical data and laws. We must decompose each chaos into single facts. We must learn to see in the chaotic antecedent a multitude of distinct antecedents, in the chaotic consequent a multitude of distinct consequents.” From these considerations James concluded “even those experiences which are used to prove a scientific truth are for the most part artificial experiences of the laboratory gained after the truth itself has been conjectured. Instead of experiences engendering the inner relations, the inner relations are what engender the experience here.“

Following curiosity

Freud ( 1856–1939 ) considered curiosity and imagination as driving forces of hypothesis building which need to be confronted as quickly as possible with observations. In Beyond the Pleasure Principle , Freud wrote “One may surely give oneself up to a line of thought and follow it up as far as it leads, simply out of scientific curiosity. These innovations were direct translations of observation into theory, subject to no greater sources of error than is inevitable in anything of the kind. At all events there is no way of working out this idea except by combining facts with pure imagination and thereby departing far from observation.” This can quickly go astray when trusting intuition. Freud recommends “that one may inexorably reject theories that are contradicted by the very first steps in the analysis of observation and be aware that those one holds have only a tentative validity.”

Feed‐forward aspects of hypotheses

The geneticist Waddington ( 1905–1975 ) in his essay The Nature of Life states that “a scientific theory cannot remain a mere structure within the world of logic, but must have implications for action and that in two rather different ways. It must involve the consequence that if you do so and so, such and such result will follow. That is to say it must give, or at least offer, the possibility of controlling the process. Secondly, its value is quite largely dependent on its power of suggesting the next step in scientific advance. Any complete piece of scientific work starts with an activity essentially the same as that of an artist. It starts by asking a relevant question. The first step may be a new awareness of some facet of the world that no one else had previously thought worth attending to. Or some new imaginative idea which depends on a sensitive receptiveness to the oddity of nature essentially similar to that of the artist. In his logical analysis and manipulative experimentation, the scientist is behaving arrogantly towards nature, trying to force her into his categories of thought or to trick her into doing what he wants. But finally he has to be humble. He has to take his intuition, his logical theory and his manipulative skill to the bar of Nature and see whether she answers yes or no; and he has to abide by the result. Science is often quite ready to tolerate some logical inadequacy in a theory‐or even a flat logical contradiction like that between the particle and wave theories of matter‐so long as it finds itself in the possession of a hypothesis which offers both the possibility of control and a guide to worthwhile avenues of exploration.”

Poincaré: the dialogue between experiment and hypothesis

Poincaré ( 1854 –1912b) also dealt with physics in Science and Hypothesis . “Experiment is the sole source of truth. It alone can teach us certainty. Cannot we be content with experiment alone? What place is left for mathematical physics? The man of science must work with method. Science is built up of facts, as a house is built of stones, but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house. It is often said that experiments should be made without preconceived concepts. That is impossible. Without the hypothesis, no conclusion could have been drawn; nothing extraordinary would have been seen; and only one fact the more would have been catalogued, without deducing from it the remotest consequence.” Poincaré compares science to a library. Experimental physics alone can enrich the library with new books, but mathematical theoretical physics draw up the catalogue to find the books and to reveal gaps which have to be closed by the purchase of new books.

Poincaré: false, true, fruitful and dangerous hypotheses

Poincaré continues “we all know that there are good and bad experiments. The latter accumulate in vain. Whether there are hundred or thousand, one single piece of work will be sufficient to sweep them into oblivion. Bacon invented the term of an experimentum crucis for such experiments. What then is a good experiment? It is that which teaches us something more than an isolated fact. It is that which enables us to predict and to generalize. Experiments only gives us a certain number of isolated points. They must be connected by a continuous line and that is true generalization. Every generalization is a hypothesis. It should be as soon as possible submitted to verification. If it cannot stand the test, it must be abandoned without any hesitation. The physicist who has just given up one of his hypotheses should rejoice, for he found an unexpected opportunity of discovery. The hypothesis took into account all the known factors which seem capable of intervention in the phenomenon. If it is not verified, it is because there is something unexpected. Has the hypothesis thus rejected been sterile? Far from it. It has rendered more service than a true hypothesis.” Poincaré notes that “with a true hypothesis only one fact the more would have been catalogued, without deducing from it the remotest consequence. It may be said that the wrong hypothesis has rendered more service than a true hypothesis.” However, Poincaré warns that “some hypotheses are dangerous – first and foremost those which are tacit and unconscious. And since we make them without knowing them, we cannot get rid of them.” Poincaré notes that here mathematical physics is of help because by its precision one is compelled to formulate all the hypotheses, revealing also the tacit ones.

Arguments for the reductionist principle

Poincaré also warned against multiplying hypotheses indefinitely: “If we construct a theory upon multiple hypotheses, and if experiment condemns it, which of the premisses must be changed?” Poincaré also recommended to “resolve the complex phenomenon given directly by experiment into a very large number of elementary phenomena. First, with respect to time. Instead of embracing in its entirety the progressive development of a phenomenon, we simply try to connect each moment with the one immediately preceding. Next, we try to decompose the phenomenon in space. We must try to deduce the elementary phenomenon localized in a very small region of space.” Poincaré suggested that the physicist should “be guided by the instinct of simplicity, and that is why in physical science generalization so readily takes the mathematical form to state the problem in the form of an equation.” This argument goes back to Galilei ( 1564 –1642b) who wrote in The Two Sciences “when I observe a stone initially at rest falling from an elevated position and continually acquiring new increments of speed, why should I not believe that such increases take place in a manner which is exceedingly simple and rather obvious to everybody? If now we examine the matter carefully we find no addition or increment more simple than that which repeats itself always in the same manner. It seems we shall not be far wrong if we put the increment of speed as proportional to the increment of time.” With a bit of geometrical reasoning, Galilei deduced that the distance travelled by a freely falling body varies as the square of the time. However, Galilei was not naïve and continued “I grant that these conclusions proved in the abstract will be different when applied in the concrete” and considers disturbances cause by friction and air resistance that complicate the initially conceived simplicity.

Four sequential steps of discovery…

Some philosophers of science attributed a fundamental importance to observations for the acquisition of experience in science. The process starts with accidental observations (Aristotle), going to systematic observations (Bacon), leading to quantitative rules obtained with exact measurements (Newton and Kant) and culminating in observations under artificially created conditions in experiments (Galilei) (Mittelstrass,  1980g ).

…rejected by Popper and Kant

In fact, Newton wrote that he had developed his theory of gravitation from experience followed by induction. K. Popper ( 1902‐1994 ) in his book Conjectures and Refutations did not agree with this logical flow “experience leading to theory” and that for several reasons. This scheme is according to Popper intuitively false because observations are always inexact, while theory makes absolute exact assertions. It is also historically false because Copernicus and Kepler were not led to their theories by experimental observations but by geometry and number theories of Plato and Pythagoras for which they searched verifications in observational data. Kepler, for example, tried to prove the concept of circular planetary movement influenced by Greek theory of the circle being a perfect geometric figure and only when he could not demonstrate this with observational data, he tried elliptical movements. Popper noted that it was Kant who realized that even physical experiments are not prior to theories when quoting Kant's preface to the Critique of Pure Reason : “When Galilei let his globes run down an inclined plane with a gravity which he has chosen himself, then a light dawned on all natural philosophers. They learnt that our reason can only understand what it creates according to its own design; that we must compel Nature to answer our questions, rather than cling to Nature's apron strings and allow her to guide us. For purely accidental observations, made without any plan having been thought out in advance, cannot be connected by a law‐ which is what reason is searching for.” From that reasoning Popper concluded that “we ourselves must confront nature with hypotheses and demand a reply to our questions; and that lacking such hypotheses, we can only make haphazard observations which follow no plan and which can therefore never lead to a natural law. Everyday experience, too, goes far beyond all observations. Everyday experience must interpret observations for without theoretical interpretation, observations remain blind and uninformative. Everyday experience constantly operates with abstract ideas, such as that of cause and effect, and so it cannot be derived from observation.” Popper agreed with Kant who said “Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature…but imposes them on nature”. Popper modifies this statement to “Our intellect does not draw its laws from nature, but tries‐ with varying degrees of success – to impose upon nature laws which it freely invents. Theories are seen to be free creations of our mind, the result of almost poetic intuition. While theories cannot be logically derived from observations, they can, however, clash with observations. This fact makes it possible to infer from observations that a theory is false. The possibility of refuting theories by observations is the basis of all empirical tests. All empirical tests are therefore attempted refutations.”

OUTLOOK: HYPOTHESES IN BIOLOGY

Is biology special.

Waddington notes that “living organisms are much more complicated than the non‐living things. Biology has therefore developed more slowly than sciences such as physics and chemistry and has tended to rely on them for many of its basic ideas. These older physical sciences have provided biology with many firm foundations which have been of the greatest value to it, but throughout most of its history biology has found itself faced with the dilemma as to how far its reliance on physics and chemistry should be pushed” both with respect to its experimental methods and its theoretical foundations. Vitalism is indeed such a theory maintaining that organisms cannot be explained solely by physicochemical laws claiming specific biological forces active in organisms. However, efforts to prove the existence of such vital forces have failed and today most biologists consider vitalism a superseded theory.

Biology as a branch of science is as old as physics. If one takes Aristotle as a reference, he has written more on biology than on physics. Sophisticated animal experiments were already conducted in the antiquity by Galen (Brüssow, 2022 ). Alertus Magnus displayed biological research interest during the medieval time. Knowledge on plants provided the basis of medical drugs in early modern times. What explains biology's decreasing influence compared with the rapid development of physics by Galilei and Newton? One reason is the possibility to use mathematical equations to describe physical phenomena which was not possible for biological phenomena. Physics has from the beginning displayed a trend to few fundamental underlying principles. This is not the case for biology. With the discovery of new continents, biologists were fascinated by the diversity of life. Diversity was the conducting line of biological thinking. This changed only when taxonomists and comparative anatomists revealed recurring pattern in this stunning biological variety and when Darwin provided a theoretical concept to understand variation as a driving force in biology. Even when genetics and molecular biology allowed to understand biology from a few universally shared properties, such as a universal genetic code, biology differed in fundamental aspects from physics and chemistry. First, biology is so far restricted to the planet earth while the laws of physic and chemistry apply in principle to the entire universe. Second, biology is to a great extent a historical discipline; many biological processes cannot be understood from present‐day observations because they are the result of historical developments in evolution. Hence, the importance of Dobzhansky's dictum that nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution. The great diversity of life forms, the complexity of processes occurring in cells and their integration in higher organisms and the importance of a historical past for the understanding of extant organisms, all that has delayed the successful application of mathematical methods in biology or the construction of theoretical frameworks in biology. Theoretical biology by far did not achieve a comparable role as theoretical physics which is on equal foot with experimental physics. Many biologists are even rather sceptical towards a theoretical biology and see progress in the development of ever more sophisticated experimental methods instead in theoretical concepts expressed by new hypotheses.

Knowledge from data without hypothesis?

Philosophers distinguish rational knowledge ( cognitio ex principiis ) from knowledge from data ( cognitio ex data ). Kant associates these two branches with natural sciences and natural history, respectively. The latter with descriptions of natural objects as prominently done with systematic classification of animals and plants or, where it is really history, when describing events in the evolution of life forms on earth. Cognitio ex data thus played a much more prominent role in biology than in physics and explains why the compilation of data and in extremis the collection of museum specimen characterizes biological research. To account for this difference, philosophers of the logical empiricism developed a two‐level concept of science languages consisting of a language of observations (Beobachtungssprache) and a language of theories (Theoriesprache) which are linked by certain rules of correspondence (Korrespondenzregeln) (Carnap,  1891 –1970d). If one looks into leading biological research journals, it becomes clear that biology has a sophisticated language of observation and a much less developed language of theories.

Do we need more philosophical thinking in biology or at least a more vigorous theoretical biology? The breathtaking speed of progress in experimental biology seems to indicate that biology can well develop without much theoretical or philosophical thinking. At the same time, one could argue that some fields in biology might need more theoretical rigour. Microbiologists might think on microbiome research—one of the breakthrough developments of microbiology research in recent years. The field teems with fascinating, but ill‐defined terms (our second genome; holobionts; gut–brain axis; dysbiosis, symbionts; probiotics; health benefits) that call for stricter definitions. One might also argue that biologists should at least consider the criticism of Goethe ( 1749–1832 ), a poet who was also an active scientist. In Faust , the devil ironically teaches biology to a young student.

“Wer will was Lebendigs erkennen und beschreiben, Sucht erst den Geist herauszutreiben, Dann hat er die Teile in seiner Hand, Fehlt, leider! nur das geistige Band.” (To docket living things past any doubt. You cancel first the living spirit out: The parts lie in the hollow of your hand, You only lack the living thing you banned).

We probably need both in biology: more data and more theory and hypotheses.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author reports no conflict of interest.

FUNDING INFORMATION

No funding information provided.