A "bad" hypothesis is one that:
1) Incorrectly identifies a causal factor;
2) Is untestable;
3) Only partially explains a phenomenon; or
4) Is not in line with current thinking in the field.
A "bad" hypothesis is one that:
1) Incorrectly identifies a causal factor;
2) Is untestable;
3) Only partially explains a phenomenon; or
4) Is not in line with current thinking in the field.
A "bad" hypothesis is one that:
1) Incorrectly identifies a causal factor;
2) Is untestable;
3) Only partially explains a phenomenon; or
4) Is not in line with current thinking in the field.
A "bad" hypothesis is one that:
1) Incorrectly identifies a causal factor;
2) Is untestable;
3) Only partially explains a phenomenon; or
4) Is not in line with current thinking in the field.
A. A hypothesis that incorrectly identifies a causal
factor. B. A hypothesis that is untestable. C. A hypothesis that only partially explains a phenomenon. D. A hypothesis that is not in line with current thinking in the field. E.All of the above. what is a hypothesis? A provisional statement that proposes a possible explanation for a particular observed phenomenon what is a hypothesis? Superstitions are primitive hypotheses. environmental science we propose and test hypotheses to understand patterns and relationships in nature, and to understand the effects and consequences of human activities on the environment good hypotheses “breed” when tested, give rise to lots of other hypotheses what is a hypothesis? A provisional statement that proposes a possible explanation for a particular observed phenomenon
what is a null hypothesis?
A statement of “no effect”. Experimental results are analyzed to see whether they support the (alternate) hypothesis or the null. what is a hypothesis? HA: Cigarette smoking increases the probability of developing certain types of lung cancer.
what is a null hypothesis?
H0: Cigarette smoking has no effect on the probability of developing certain types of lung cancer. Predictions what you expect to happen if your hypothesis is true (in terms of measurable results)
IF cigarette smoking increases the probability of
developing certain types of lung cancer, THEN the incidence of lung cancer should be higher in a group of heavy, lifetime smokers than in a comparable group of non-smokers. Predictions give rise to study designs Compare the incidence of lung cancer in a group of 1,000 males 65-70 years of age who have smoked for at least 20 years to a group of 1,000 males 65-70 years of age who have never smoked. good study designs:
• have adequate samples sizes
• are unbiased • are achievable • have some kind of comparison (to a relevant control group, to previous conditions, etc.) • are ethical a good hypothesis is SMART S = Specific M = Measurable A = Achievable R = Realistic T = Time-Bound
what is a “bad” hypothesis?
unfalsifiable hypothesis “Belugas in the St Laurence River are dying because it is part of God’s plan.” untestable hypothesis “The belugas are dying because they are susceptible to an undetectable radio frequency that is being picked up in their fat cells which disrupts their endocrine system.” “out-there” hypotheses: you better have a water-tight argument and a boat-load of evidence!! Correlation is not causation! be careful if you can’t imagine a mechanism for the relationship……. a good hypothesis.. observations: • Effluent from tar sands tailings ponds contains carcinogenic chemicals. • Wildlife living around tailings ponds can absorb these carcinogens. • People are hunting and eating wildlife that live around tailings ponds. a good hypothesis.. HA: exposure to carciogens from the tar sands via the consumption of contaminated wildlife increases the probability of developing cancer of the bile duct.
H0: exposure to chemicals from the tar sands via the
consumption of contaminated wildlife has no effect on the probability of developing cancer of the bile duct. a good prediction.. If exposure to chemicals from the tar sands via the consumption of contaminated wildlife increases the probability of developing cancer of the bile duct, then people who consume wildlife contaminated with tar sands chemicals will have a higher rate of bile dict cancer than those who do not consume contaminated wildlife. How would you design a study to test this hypothesis? “what if my hypothesis is wrong?” A hypothesis doesn’t have to be “right” to be valuable... “If you are not prepared to be wrong, you'll never come up with anything original.”