What is a hypothesis in biology definition. The meaning of the word hypothesis

A hypothesis is a natural form of development of knowledge, which is a reasonable assumption put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.

characteristic features of the hypothesis:

(1) A hypothesis is a universal and necessary form of knowledge development for any cognitive process.

(2) Constructing a hypothesis is always accompanied by putting forward assumptions about the nature of the phenomena under study, which is the logical core of the hypothesis and is formulated in the form of a separate judgment or a system of interrelated judgments.

(3) The assumption that arises when constructing a hypothesis is born as a result analysis of factual material, based on a synthesis of numerous observations. Intuition plays an important role in the emergence of a fruitful hypothesis, Creative skills and the fantasy of the researcher.

Types of hypotheses

In the process of knowledge development, hypotheses differ in their cognitive functions and the object of study.

1. By functions in cognitive process, hypotheses are distinguished: (1) descriptive And (2)explanatory.

(1)Descriptive hypothesis - this is an assumption about the inherent properties of the object under study. It usually answers the question:

Descriptive hypotheses can be put forward to identify composition or structures object, disclosure mechanism or procedural features of its activities, definitions functional characteristics of the object.

(2)An explanatory hypothesis is an assumption about the reasons for the emergence of the object of research.

2. Based on the object of study, hypotheses are distinguished: general and private.

(1) O A general hypothesis is an educated guess about natural connections and empirical regularities.

(2) A particular hypothesis is an educated guess about the origin and properties of individual facts, specific events and phenomena. If a single circumstance served as the cause of the emergence of other facts and if it is not accessible to direct perception, then its knowledge takes the form of a hypothesis about the existence or properties of this circumstance.

Along with the terms “general” and “particular hypothesis” the term is used in science "working hypothesis".

A working hypothesis is an assumption put forward at the first stages of the study, which serves as a conditional assumption that allows us to group the results of observations and give them an initial explanation.

§ 4. Methods of proving hypotheses

There are three main ways: deductive justification of the assumption expressed in the hypothesis; logical proof of the hypothesis; direct detection of hypothesized objects.

(1)Direct detection of the desired objects. The most convincing way to turn an assumption into reliable knowledge is direct detection at the expected time or in the expected place of the desired objects or direct perception of the assumed properties.

(2)Logical proof of versions. Versions that explain the essential circumstances of the cases under investigation are transformed into reliable knowledge through logical justification.

Logical proof of a hypothesis, depending on the method of justification, can take the form indirect or direct evidence.

Indirect proof proceeds by refuting and eliminating all false versions, on the basis of which the reliability of the only remaining assumption is asserted.

The conclusion proceeds in the form of a denying-affirming mode of separation-categorical inference.

Direct proof of a hypothesis proceeds by deriving from the assumption various consequences that follow only from this hypothesis and confirming them with newly discovered facts.

In the premises of a simple categorical syllogism, the middle term can take the place of subject or predicate. Depending on this, there are four types of syllogism, which are called figures (Fig. 52).

Rice. 52

In the first figure the middle term takes the place of the subject in the major and the place of the predicate in the minor premises.

In second figure- place of the predicate in both premises. IN third figure- the place of the subject in both premises. IN fourth figure- the place of the predicate in the major and the place of the subject in the minor premise.

These figures exhaust all possible combinations of terms. The figures of a syllogism are its varieties, differing in the position of the middle term in the premises.

The premises of a syllogism can be judgments of different quality and quantity: general affirmative (A), general negative (E), particular affirmative (I) and particular negative (O).

Varieties of syllogism that differ in the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the premises are called modes of simple categorical syllogism.

For example, the major and minor premises are generally affirmative judgments (AA), the major premise is a generally affirmative, the minor is a general negative judgment (AE), etc. Since each premise can be any of four propositions, the number of possible combinations of premises in each figure is 2 4, i.e. 16:

AA EA IA OA AE (EE) IE(OE)AIEI(II) (01) AO (EO) (10) (00) Obviously, in the four figures the number of combinations is 64. However, not all modes are consistent with the general rules of the syllogism. For example, modes enclosed in brackets contradict the 1st and 3rd rules of premises,

modeI.A. does not pass through the first and second figures, since it contradicts the 2nd rule of terms, etc. Therefore, by selecting only those modes that are consistent with the general rules of the syllogism, we obtain 19 modes, which are called correct. They are usually written down along with the conclusion:

1st figure: AAA, EAE, All, EY

2nd figure: EAE, AEE, EY, AOO

3rd figure: AAI, IAI, All, EAO, OAO, EY

4th figure: AAI, AEE, IAI, EAO, EY

Special rules and cognitive significance of syllogism figures

Each figure has its own special rules, which are derived from the general ones.

Rules for the 1st figure:

1. The major premise is a general proposition.

2. The minor premise is an affirmative proposition.

Let us first prove the 2nd rule. If the minor premise is a negative proposition, then according to the 2nd rule of premises the conclusion will also be negative, in which P is distributed. But then it will be distributed in the larger premise, which must also be a negative judgment (in an affirmative judgment P is not distributed), and this contradicts the 1st rule of premises. If the major premise is an affirmative proposition, then P will not be distributed. But then it will not be distributed in conclusion (according to the 3rd rule of terms). A conclusion with undistributed P can only be an affirmative judgment, since in a negative judgment P is distributed. This means that the minor premise is an affirmative judgment, since otherwise the conclusion will be negative.

Now let's prove the 1st rule. Since the middle term in this figure takes the place of the subject in the greater and the place of the predicate in the minor premise, then, according to the 2nd rule of terms, it must be distributed in at least one of the premises. But the minor premise is an affirmative proposition. This means that the middle term is not distributed in it. But in this case it must be distributed in a larger premise, and for this it must be a general judgment (in a particular premise the subject is not distributed).

Let us exclude combinations of premises IA, OA, IE, which contradict the 1st rule of the figure, and combinations AE and AO, which contradict the 2nd rule. There remain four modes AAA, EAE, All, EA, which are correct. These modes show that the 1st figure gives any conclusions: generally affirmative, generally negative, particular affirmative and particular negative, which determines its cognitive significance and wide application in reasoning.

The 1st figure is the most typical form of deductive reasoning. From a general position, which often expresses a law of science, a legal norm, a conclusion is drawn about a separate fact, a single case, a specific person. This figure is widely used in judicial practice. Legal assessment (qualification) of legal phenomena, application of the rule of law to an individual case, sentencing for a crime committed by a specific person, and other judicial decisions take the logical form of the 1st figure of the syllogism.

For example:

All persons deprived of their liberty (M) have the right to be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (P) H. (S) deprived of their liberty (M)

H.(S) has the right to be treated humanely and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (R)

Rules for the 2nd figure:

1. The major premise is a general proposition.

2. One of the premises is a negative judgment.

The second rule of the figure is derived from the 2nd rule of terms (the middle term must be distributed in at least one of the premises). But since the middle term takes the place of a predicate in both premises, one of them must be a negative proposition, i.e. a proposition with a distributed predicate.

If one of the premises is a negative proposition, then the conclusion must be negative (a proposition with a distributed predicate). But in this case, the predicate of the conclusion (the larger term) must be distributed in the larger premise, where it takes the place of the subject of the judgment. Such a premise must be a general judgment in which the subject is distributed. This means that the larger premise must be a general proposition.

The rules of the 2nd figure exclude combinations of premises AA, IA, OA, IE, AI, leaving the modes EAE, AEE, EY, AOO, which show that this figure gives only negative conclusions.

The 2nd figure is used when it is necessary to show that a separate case (a specific person, fact, phenomenon) cannot be subsumed under a general position. This case is excluded from the number of subjects spoken of in the major premise. IN judicial practice The 2nd figure is used to draw conclusions about the absence of a crime in this particular case, to refute provisions that contradict what is stated in the premise expressing the general position.

For example:

An instigator (P) is a person who incites another person to commit a crime (M) H. (S) is not recognized as a person who induces another person to commit a crime (M)

H.(S) is not an instigator (P)

Rules for the 3rd figure:

1. The minor premise is an affirmative proposition.

2. Conclusion - private judgment.

The 1st rule is proven in the same way as the 2nd rule of the 1st figure. But if the minor premise is an affirmative proposition, then its predicate (the minor term of the syllogism) is not distributed. A term not distributed in the premise cannot be distributed in the conclusion. This means that the conclusion must be a private judgment.

Giving only partial conclusions, the 3rd figure is most often used to establish partial compatibility of features related to one subject. For example:

Inspection of the scene of the incident (M) has one of its tasks

detection of traces of a crime (P)

Inspection of the crime scene (M) - investigative action (S)

Some investigative actions (S) have one of their tasks to detect traces of a crime (P)

In the practice of reasoning, the 3rd figure is used relatively rarely.

4th figure syllogism also has its own rules and modes. However, deriving a conclusion from the premises based on this figure is not typical for the natural process of reasoning. For example:

Taking a hostage (P) is a crime against public safety (M)

Crime against public safety (M) - a socially dangerous act provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (S)

Some socially dangerous acts provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (S) are hostage-taking (P)

This line of reasoning seems to be somewhat artificial; in practice, conclusions in such cases are usually drawn from the first figure:

Crimes against public safety (M) - socially dangerous acts provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (R)

Hostage taking (S) is a crime against public safety (M) _____

Hostage taking (S) is a socially dangerous act provided for by the Special Part of the Criminal Code (P)

Since the course of reasoning based on the 4th figure is not typical for the thinking process, and the cognitive value of the conclusion is small, we do not consider the rules and modes of this figure.

The rules of syllogism are formulated for syllogistic conclusions that do not include distinguishing judgments as premises. If there are such premises, then such syllogisms do not obey some general rules, as well as special rules for figures.

Let's look at the most common cases.

HYPOTHESIS

Philosophy: encyclopedic Dictionary. - M.: Gardariki. Edited by A.A. Ivina. 2004 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from the Greek hypothesis - basis, foundation)

a well-thought-out assumption, expressed in the form of scientific concepts, which should, in a certain place, fill the gaps of empirical knowledge or connect various empirical knowledge into a whole, or give a preliminary explanation of a fact or group of facts. A hypothesis is scientific only if it is confirmed by facts: “Hypotheses non fingo” (Latin) – “I do not invent hypotheses” (Newton). A hypothesis can exist only as long as it does not contradict reliable facts of experience, otherwise it becomes simply a fiction; it is verified (tested) by the relevant facts of experience, especially experiment, obtaining truths; it is fruitful as a heuristic or if it can lead to new knowledge and new ways of knowing. “The essential thing about a hypothesis is that it leads to new observations and investigations, whereby our conjecture is confirmed, refuted, or modified—in short, expanded” (Mach). The facts of experience of any limited scientific field, together with realized, strictly proven hypotheses or connecting, the only possible hypotheses, form a theory (Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, 1906).

Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. 2010 .

HYPOTHESIS

(from Greek ὑπόϑεσις – basis, assumption)

1) A special kind of assumption about directly unobservable forms of connection between phenomena or the causes that produce these phenomena.

3) A complex technique that includes both making an assumption and its subsequent proof.

Hypothesis as an assumption. G. plays a dual role: either as an assumption about one or another form of connection between observed phenomena, or as an assumption about the connection between observed phenomena and internal ones. the basis that produces them. G. of the first kind are called descriptive, and of the second - explanatory. As a scientific assumption, G. differs from an arbitrary guess in that it satisfies a number of requirements. The fulfillment of these requirements forms the consistency of the G. The first condition: the G. must explain the entire range of phenomena for the analysis of which it is put forward, if possible without contradicting previously established ones. facts and scientific provisions. However, if the explanation of these phenomena on the basis of consistency with known facts fails, statements are put forward that enter into agreement with previously proven positions. This is how many foundations arose. G. science.

The second condition: the fundamental verifiability of G. A hypothesis is an assumption about a certain directly unobservable basis of phenomena and can be verified only by comparing the consequences derived from it with experience. The inaccessibility of consequences to experimental verification means the unverifiability of G. It is necessary to distinguish between two types of unverifiability: practical. and principled. The first is that the consequences cannot be verified at the given level of development of science and technology, but in principle their verification is possible. G. that are practically unverifiable at the moment cannot be discarded, but they must be put forward with a certain caution; cannot concentrate his fundamentals. efforts to develop such G. The fundamental unverifiability of G. lies in the fact that it cannot give consequences that can be compared with experience. A striking example of a fundamentally untestable hypothesis is provided by the explanation proposed by Lorenz and Fitzgerald for the absence of an interference pattern in the Michelson experiment. The reduction in the length of any body assumed by them in the direction of its movement cannot in principle be detected by any measurement, because Together with the moving body, the scale ruler also experiences the same contraction, with the help of which the scale will be produced. G., which do not lead to any observable consequences, except those for which they are specifically put forward to explain, and will be fundamentally unverifiable. The requirement for the fundamental verifiability of G. is, in the very essence of the matter, a deeply materialistic requirement, although it tries to use it in one’s own interests, especially one that empties the content from the requirement of verifiability, reducing it to the notorious beginning of fundamental observability (see Verifiability principle) or to the requirement of an operationalist definition of concepts (see Operationalism). Positivist speculation on the requirement of fundamental verifiability should not lead to declaring this very requirement to be positivist. The fundamental verifiability of G. is extremely important condition its consistency, directed against arbitrary constructions that do not allow any external detection and do not manifest themselves in any way outside.

The third condition: the applicability of G. to the widest possible range of phenomena. G. should be used to deduce not only those phenomena for which it is specifically put forward to explain, but also possibly wider phenomena that would seem to be not directly related to the original ones. Because it represents a single coherent whole and the separate exists only in that connection that leads to the general, G., proposed to explain the cl.-l. a relatively narrow group of phenomena (if it correctly covers them) will certainly prove to be valid for explaining some other phenomena. On the contrary, if G. does not explain anything except that specific one. group of phenomena, for the understanding of which it was specially proposed, this means that it does not grasp the general basis of these phenomena, what it means. its part is arbitrary. Such G. are hypothetical, i.e. G., put forward exclusively and only to explain this, are few in number. groups of facts. For example, quantum theory was originally proposed by Planck in 1900 to explain one relatively narrow group of facts—black body radiation. Basic The assumption of this theory about the existence of discrete portions of energy - quanta - was unusual and sharply contradicted the classical one. ideas. However, the quantum theory, for all its unusualness and the apparent ad hoc nature of the theory, turned out to be capable of subsequently explaining an exceptionally wide range of facts. In a private region of black body radiation, she felt common ground, revealing itself in many other phenomena. This is exactly the nature of scientific research. G. in general.

Fourth condition: the greatest possible fundamental simplicity of G. This should not be understood as a requirement for ease, accessibility or simplicity of mathematics. forms G. Valid. G.'s simplicity lies in its ability, based on a single basis, to explain as wide a range of different phenomena as possible, without resorting to the arts. constructions and arbitrary assumptions, without putting forward in each new case more and more new G. ad hoc. Simplicity of scientific G. and theories have a source and should not be confused with the subjectivist interpretation of simplicity in the spirit, for example, of the principle of economy of thinking. In understanding the objective source of simplicity scientific. theories there is a fundamental difference between metaphysical. and dialectical materialism, which proceeds from the recognition of the inexhaustibility of the material world and rejects metaphysics. belief in some abs. simplicity of nature. The simplicity of geometry is relative, since the “simplicity” of the phenomena being explained is relative. Behind the apparent simplicity of the observed phenomena, their inner nature reveals. complexity. Science constantly has to abandon old simple concepts and create new ones that at first glance may seem much more complex. The task is not to stop at stating this complexity, but to move on, to reveal that inner. unity and dialectic. contradictions, that common connection, edge lies at the basis of this complexity. Therefore, with further progress of knowledge, new theoretical theories. constructions necessarily acquire fundamental simplicity, although not coinciding with the simplicity of the previous theory. Compliance with basic conditions of consistency of a hypothesis do not yet turn it into a theory, but in their absence, the assumption cannot at all claim to be a scientific one. G.

Hypothesis as a conclusion. G.'s inference consists in transferring the subject from one judgment, which has a given predicate, to another, which has a similar and some unknown yet. M. Karinsky was the first to draw attention to G. as a special conclusion; however, he overestimated his discovery and included in G.’s conclusion not only the advancement of a certain assumption, but also the process of its subsequent proof. The advancement of any G. always begins with the study of the range of phenomena for which this G. is created to explain. With logical point of view, this means that the formulation of a set judgment for the construction of a group takes place: X is P1 and P2 and P3, etc., where P1, P2 are the signs of the studied group of phenomena discovered by research, and X is the yet unknown bearer of these signs (their ). Among the available judgments, one is looking for one that, if possible, would contain the same particular predicates P1, P2, etc., but with an already known subject (): S is P1 and P2 and P3, etc. From the two available judgments the conclusion is drawn: X is P1 and P2 and P3; S is P1 and P2 and P3, therefore X = S.

The given inference is G.’s inference (in this sense, a hypothetical inference), and the judgment obtained in the conclusion is G. By appearance hypothetical the inference resembles the second categorical figure. a syllogism, but with two assertions, premises, which, as is known, represents a logically invalid form of conclusion. But this turns out to be external. The predicate of an attitudinal judgment, unlike the predicate in the premises of the second figure, has a complex structure and, to a greater or lesser extent, turns out to be specific, which gives the possibility of qualities. assessing the probability that if the predicates coincide, there is similarity in the subjects. It is known that in the presence of a general distinguishing figure, the second figure gives a reliable one and, with two, it will confirm. judgments. In this case, the coincidence of predicates makes the probability of coincidence of subjects equal to 1. In the case of non-selective judgments, this probability ranges from 0 to 1. Ordinary ones will affirm. the premises in the second figure do not provide grounds for assessing this probability, and therefore are logically invalid here. In a hypothetical In conclusion, this is made on the basis of the complex nature of the predicate, which to a greater or lesser extent brings it closer to specificity. predicate of a distinguishing proposition.

Reliable knowledge in a scientific or practical field is always preceded by a rational understanding and assessment of the factual material provided by observation. This mental activity is accompanied by the construction of various kinds of guesses and conjectural explanations of observed phenomena. At first the explanations are problematic. Further research amends these explanations. As a result, science and practice overcome numerous deviations, misconceptions and contradictions and achieve objectively true results.

The decisive link in the cognitive chain that ensures the formation of new knowledge is hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a natural form of development of knowledge, which is a reasonable assumption put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.

The most important among those noted in the definition will be the following characteristic features of the hypothesis.

(1) A hypothesis is a universal and necessary form of knowledge development for any cognitive process. Where there is a search for new ideas or facts, regular connections or causal dependencies, there is always a hypothesis. It acts as a link between previously achieved knowledge and new truths and at the same time as a cognitive tool that regulates the logical transition from previous incomplete and inaccurate knowledge to new, more complete and more accurate knowledge.

Thus, the development inherent in the process of cognition predetermines the functioning of the hypothesis in thinking as a necessary and universal form of such development.

(2) Constructing a hypothesis is always accompanied by putting forward assumptions O the nature of the phenomena under study, which is the logical core of the hypothesis and is formulated in the form of a separate judgment or a system of interrelated judgments. It's always

has a weakened epistemic modality: it is problematic judgment which expresses inaccurate knowledge.

To turn into reliable knowledge, a hypothesis is subject to scientific and practical verification. The hypothesis testing process, which takes place using various logical techniques, operations and forms of inference, ultimately leads to refutation or under" strengthening and its further proof.

So, a hypothesis always contains something that needs to be verified. probable knowledge. A position proven on its basis is no longer a hypothesis itself, for it contains verified and unquestionable true knowledge.

(3) The assumption that arises when constructing a hypothesis is born as a result analysis of factual material, based on a synthesis of numerous observations. An important role in the emergence of a fruitful hypothesis is played by the intuition, creativity and imagination of the researcher. However, a scientific hypothesis is not just a guess, fantasy or assumption, but is based on specific materials rationally justified, rather than an intuitively and subconsciously accepted assumption.

The noted features make it possible to more clearly define the essential features of the hypothesis. Any hypothesis has initial data, or grounds, and the end result is assumption. It also includes logical processing of source data and transition to conjecture. The final stage of cognition - check a hypothesis that turns an assumption into reliable knowledge or refutes it.

Types of hypotheses

In the process of knowledge development, hypotheses differ in their cognitive functions and object research.

1. By function in cognitive process, hypotheses are distinguished: (1) descriptive and 2) explanatory.

(1)Descriptive hypothesis - this is an assumption about the inherent properties of the object under study. It usually answers the question:

“What is this object?” or “What properties does this object have?”

Descriptive hypotheses can be put forward to identify composition or structures object, disclosure mechanism or procedural features of its activities, definitions functional characteristics of the object.

For example, the hypothesis about the wave propagation of light that arose in the theory of physics was a hypothesis about the mechanism of light motion. A chemist's guess about the components and atomic chains of a new polymer refers to hypotheses about composition and structure. The hypothesis of a political scientist or lawyer that predicts the immediate or long-term social effect of an adopted new package of laws refers to functional assumptions.

A special place among descriptive hypotheses is occupied by hypotheses about existence any object that is called existential hypotheses. An example of such a hypothesis is the assumption of the once coexistence of the continent of the Western (America) and Eastern (Europe and Africa) hemispheres. The hypothesis about the existence of Atlantis will be the same.

(2)An explanatory hypothesis is an assumption about the reasons for the emergence of the object of research. Such hypotheses usually ask: “Why did this event happen?” or “What are the reasons for this item?”

Examples of such assumptions: the hypothesis of the Tunguska meteorite; hypothesis about the appearance of ice ages on Earth; assumptions about the causes of animal extinction in different geological eras; hypotheses about the motivating reasons and motives for the accused to commit a specific crime and others.

The history of science shows that in the process of developing knowledge, existential hypotheses first arise that clarify the fact of the existence of specific objects. Then descriptive hypotheses arise that clarify the properties of these objects. The last step is the construction of explanatory hypotheses that reveal the mechanism and causes of the occurrence of the objects under study. The consistent complication of hypotheses in the process of cognition - about existence, about properties, about causes - is a reflection of the dialectics inherent in the process of cognition: from simple - to complex, from external - to internal, from phenomenon - to essence.

2. Based on the object of study, hypotheses are distinguished: general and private.

(1)A general hypothesis is an educated guess about natural connections and empirical regularities. Examples of general hypotheses include: developed in the 18th century. M.V. Lomonosov's hypothesis about the atomic structure of matter; modern competing hypotheses of academician O.Yu. Schmidt and academician V.G. Fesenkova on the origin of celestial bodies; hypotheses about the organic and inorganic origin of oil and others.

General hypotheses serve as scaffolding for the development of scientific knowledge. Once proven, they become scientific theories and are valuable contribution in the development of scientific knowledge.

(2) A particular hypothesis is a reasonable assumption about the origin and properties of individual facts, specific events and phenomena. If a single circumstance served as the cause of the emergence of other facts and if it is not accessible to direct perception, then its knowledge takes the form of a hypothesis about the existence or properties of this circumstance.

Particular hypotheses are put forward both in natural science and in the social historical sciences. An archaeologist, for example, puts forward a hypothesis about the time of origin and ownership of objects discovered during excavations. A historian builds a hypothesis about the relationship between specific historical events or the actions of individuals.

Particular hypotheses are also assumptions that are put forward in forensic investigative practice, because here we have to make conclusions about individual events, the actions of individual people, individual facts causally related to a criminal act.

Along with the terms “general” and “particular hypothesis” the term is used in science "working hypothesis".

The specificity of the working hypothesis is its conditional and thus temporary acceptance. It is extremely important for the researcher to systematize the available factual data at the very beginning of the investigation, rationally process them and outline ways for further searches. The working hypothesis performs the function of the first systematizer of facts.

The further fate of the working hypothesis is twofold. It is possible that it may turn from a working hypothesis into a stable, fruitful hypothesis. At the same time, it can be replaced by other hypotheses if its incompatibility with new facts is established.

In historical, sociological or political science research, as well as in forensic investigative practice, when explaining individual facts or a set of circumstances, a number of hypotheses are often put forward that explain these facts in different ways. Such hypotheses

called versions (from Latin versio - “turnover”, versare - “to modify”).

A version in legal proceedings is one of the possible hypotheses that explains the origin or properties of individual legally significant circumstances or the crime as a whole.

During the investigation of crimes and trials, versions differ in content and scope of circumstances. Among them there are are common And private versions.

(1)The general version is an assumption that explains all crimes in general as unified system specific circumstances. She answers not one, but many interrelated questions, clarifying the entire set of legally significant circumstances of the case. The most important of these questions will be the following:

what crime was committed? who did it? where, when, under what circumstances and in what way was it committed? What are the goals, motives of the crime, and the guilt of the criminal?

The unknown real reason for which a version is created is not a principle of development or an objective pattern, but a specific set of factual circumstances that make up a single crime. Covering all the issues that need to be clarified in court, this version bears the features of a general summing assumption that explains the entire crime as a whole.

(2)A particular version is an assumption that explains the individual circumstances of the crime in question. Being unknown or little-known, each of the circumstances can be the subject of independent research; for each of them, versions are also created that explain the features and origin of these circumstances.

Examples of private versions may be the following assumptions: about the location of stolen things or the location of the criminal; about accomplices of the act; about the method of penetration of the criminal to the place where the act was committed; about the motives for committing a crime and many others.

Private and general versions are closely interrelated with each other during the investigation process. The knowledge obtained with the help of particular versions serves as the basis for constructing, concretizing and clarifying the general version that explains the criminal act as a whole. In turn, the general version makes it possible to outline the main directions for putting forward private versions regarding the yet unidentified circumstances of the case.

component scientific research or experimental work, which contains an assumption about possible result and the conditions for its achievement.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

HYPOTHESIS

from Greek hypothesis - basis, assumption), a scientifically based assumption or assumption, the true meaning of which is uncertain; form of science development. G. is one of the scientific methods. research, knowledge of reality. After studying characteristic features phenomena, circumstances, conditions, etc. one can make an assumption about the essence this phenomenon(or classes of phenomena), begin constructing G. The train of thought in this case takes the form of a kind of inference. When constructing a hypothesis, inference proceeds from the presence of a consequence (of this or that fact or phenomenon) to the presence of a foundation (cause), or from the similarity of consequences or signs to the similarity of foundations. The next step is scientific. research consists of testing G. in practice. G. substantiated and confirmed by experience turns into reliable knowledge, into theory. For example, put forward by D.I. Mendeleev and then confirmed by numerous people. G. facts that the properties of chemicals. elements depend on their atomic weights, indicated the reason for the differences in the properties of elements, brought these elements into a harmonious system and gave a powerful impetus to the development of chemistry.

In the process of school During training, students should be explained the meaning of a statement and the conditions for its correct construction and application: a statement must be sufficiently substantiated and internally consistent; contradictions between hypotheticals should not be allowed. and established provisions. The learning process must be structured in such a way that, along with other forms of judgment, students also use statements; max. Problem-based learning opens up opportunities for the use of G. With the help of a system of questions asked by the teacher, students learn to put forward a hypothesis, justify it (if necessary) experimentally or using a system of reasoning, and formulate the resulting conclusion. G. are used mainly in teaching science subjects. cycle, when, when explaining a topic, integral problem tasks are introduced or students are given departments. problematic issues. The use of G. contributes to the development of logical thinking in students. thinking, imagination, mastering the elements of creative cognition. activities, makes learning more active and interesting. Lit.: Kopni and P.V., Epistemology, and logic. fundamentals of science, M., 1974; Formal Logic, Leningrad, 1977; Karpovich V.N., Problem, hypothesis, law, Novosibirsk, 1980, p. 57 -120; Didactics cf. schools, ed. M. N. Skatkina, M., 1982, p. 197-207; X a-lilov U. M., Nekrytnye issues of development of productive thinking of schoolchildren when solving school problems. math. problems, in the book: Ways of formation of creativity. thinking of schoolchildren, Ufa, 1983, p. 74-77. A. N. Zhdan.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

(from Greek hypothesis - basis, assumption) hypothesis

an assumption that has a scientific basis, put forward to explain economic processes and phenomena and for the purpose of predicting them. In economics, hypotheses are primarily associated with developing forecasts or putting forward new theories.

Dictionary of financial terms

HYPOTHESIS

structural part of a rule of law.

Dictionary of medical terms

Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language, Dal Vladimir

hypothesis

and. Greek hypothesis, supposition, conjecture, speculative position. Hypothetical, -tical; fortune-telling, speculative. Hypothesis w. or mortgage, hypothecary pledge, guarantee, surety by pledge, security. Hypotenuse or hypotenuse, math. side right triangle, opposite right angle; down, kerchief. Hypochondria or hypochondria g. the lowest degree of melancholy, a disposition to thoughtfulness, to gloomy thoughts; blues. Hypochondriacal, generally related to this condition. Hypochondriac vol. a person susceptible to this disease.

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. D.N. Ushakov

hypothesis

hypotheses, g. (Greek hypothesis) (book). A scientific assumption that has not been proven, but has a certain probability and explains a number of phenomena that are inexplicable without it (scientific). Create a hypothesis. Come to a hypothesis. Build hypotheses. Working hypothesis (see working 2).

Any assumption, assumption, conjecture.

Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. S.I.Ozhegov, N.Yu.Shvedova.

hypothesis

Y, f. (book). A scientific hypothesis put forward to explain something. phenomena; In general, this is an assumption that requires confirmation. Put forward a fruitful hypothesis, G. was confirmed.

New explanatory dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova.

hypothesis

A scientific hypothesis put forward to combine something. phenomena and requiring verification and experimental confirmation.

decomposition Any assumption, conjecture, assumption.

Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998

hypothesis

HYPOTHESIS (Greek hypothesis - basis, assumption) a presumptive judgment about the natural (causal) connection of phenomena; form of science development.

Large legal dictionary

hypothesis

in legal theory, a structural element of a rule of law that indicates the conditions of its operation. Thus, G. the rules of law regarding the refusal of a judge to accept a statement in a civil case are: non-compliance by the plaintiff established by law procedure for preliminary out-of-court dispute resolution; lack of jurisdiction of the case by this court; filing an application by an incapacitated person, etc.

Hypothesis

Induction(Greek hypothesis ≈ basis, assumption, from hypó ≈ under, below and thesis ≈ position), what lies at the basis is the reason or essence. For example, “atoms” of Democritus, “ideas” of Plato, “prime mover” of Aristotle. In modern usage, a hypothesis is an assumption or prediction of something expressed in the form of a judgment (or judgments): for example, “prediction of nature” in the formulation of natural science laws. Moreover, the original meaning of the term “G.” entered into the content of the concept of “scientific geography,” which expresses a presumptive judgment about the natural (or causal) relationship of phenomena. According to I. Kant, G. is not a dream, but an opinion about the actual state of affairs, developed under the strict supervision of reason. Being one of the ways to explain facts and observations—experimental data—G. are most often created according to the rule: “what we want to explain is similar to what we already know.” Any scientific study begins with an educational question. For example, "If celestial bodies obey the law of free fall, then how is the movement of planets possible? "The question expresses the need for knowledge - to move from ignorance to knowledge, and arises when there is already some data to answer it - facts, auxiliary theories or G., etc. In this sense, scientific G., in its epistemological role, is a connecting link between “knowledge” and “ignorance” (hence the role of G. in the processes scientific discovery), and in its logical role ≈ “a form of development of natural science, insofar as it thinks...” (F. Engels, see K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 20, p. 555) . The characterization of geography as the main form of mental exploration of the world reflects not only the role of geography in natural science, but equally its role in the social sciences. An example is the theory of materialism in sociology put forward by K. Marx, which, according to Lenin, for the first time raised sociology to the level of science (see Complete collection of works, 5th ed., vol. 1, pp. 136≈37, 139 ≈40).

In order to be scientific, G. must satisfy the following requirements. 1st requirement: a scientific hypothesis must be (at least in principle) testable, that is, the consequences derived from it by logical deduction must be amenable to experimental verification and correspond (or satisfy) the results of experiments, observations, available factual material and etc. Hence the tendency of science to give scientific G. a precise logical (mathematical) formulation that ensures the inclusion of G. as general principle into a deductive system, followed by comparison of the results of deduction with the results of observations and experiments. The purely logical “skeleton” of the procedure for introducing arguments into (deductive) proofs and excluding them is given, for example, by the rules of the so-called. natural logical inference (see Logic). The technique of methods for confirming a hypothesis, in particular its probability at a given level of knowledge, is studied in inductive and probabilistic logic (see Induction), in the theory of statistical decisions, 2nd requirement: the hypothesis must have sufficient generality and predictive power, i.e. . to explain not only those phenomena from the consideration of which it arose, but also all the phenomena associated with them. In addition, it should serve as a basis for drawing conclusions about as yet unknown phenomena (a property characteristic, in particular, of so-called mathematical geometries). 3rd requirement: G. should not be logically contradictory. From a contradictory hypothesis, according to the rules of logic, any consequences can be deduced, both verifiable in the sense of the 1st requirement and their negations. Controversial G. is obviously devoid of cognitive value; the 1st and 2nd requirements distinguish scientific G. from the so-called. working G., designed only for a “conditional explanation” of this phenomenon and not claiming to reflect the “actual state of affairs”. Working G. are often used as intermediate links in scientific constructions due to their didactic value.

Lit.: Naville E., Logic of Hypothesis, St. Petersburg, 1882; Jevons S., Fundamentals of Science, St. Petersburg, 1881, ch. 23; Asmus V.F., Hypothesis, in the book: Logika, M., 1956; Kuznetsov I.V., On the mathematical hypothesis, “Questions of Philosophy”, 1962, ╧ 10; Polya D., Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, trans. from English, M., 1957; Kopnin P.V., Hypothesis and knowledge of reality, K., 1962; Novoselov M. M., On the issue of the correct application of probabilistic methods in the analysis of mental problems, “Questions of Psychology”, 1963, ╧ 2; Vilkeev D.V., The role of hypothesis in teaching, “Soviet Pedagogy”, 1967, ╧ 6; Bazhenov L. B., Modern scientific hypothesis, in the book: Materialistic dialectics and methods of natural sciences, M., 1968.

B.V. Biryukov, M.M. Novoselov.

Wikipedia

Hypothesis

Hypothesis(- assumption; from - below, under + - thesis) - assumption or guess; a statement that requires proof, as opposed to axioms, postulates that do not require proof. A hypothesis is considered scientific if it satisfies scientific method, for example, Popper's criterion, that is, it can potentially be verified by a critical experiment.

It can also be defined as a form of knowledge development, which is an informed assumption put forward in order to clarify the properties and causes of the phenomena under study.

As a rule, a hypothesis is expressed on the basis of a number of observations (examples) confirming it, and therefore looks plausible. hypothesis subsequently or prove, turning it into an established fact (see theorem, theory), or refute(for example, indicating a counterexample), transferring it to the category of false statements.

An unproven and unrefuted hypothesis is called open problem.

Hypothesis (mathematics)

hypothesis is a statement that, based on available information, appears to have a high probability of being true, but for which no mathematical proof can be obtained. A mathematical conjecture is an open mathematical problem, and every unsolved mathematical problem that is a solvability problem can be formulated in the form of a conjecture. However, not every mathematical problem can be formulated as a hypothesis. For example, specific solution It is impossible to predict a certain system of equations or an optimization problem for 2208 unknowns, but such a solution can be not only a practical, but also a mathematical result.

The Riemann hypothesis, Fermat's Last Theorem, Waring's hypothesis and some other mathematical hypotheses played a significant role in mathematics, since attempts to prove them led to the creation of new fields and methods of research.

Examples of the use of the word hypothesis in literature.

Inexplicably, Kant-Laplace hypothesis and recognition of the possibility of abiogenesis were associated with dialectical materialism, and their denial was considered unacceptable from a dialectical point of view.

The main tools of research were means of observing facts and logical means - comparison, selection, generalization, abstraction, classification, definitions of concepts, inferences, hypotheses etc.

This means that the article that your Matvey Belov brought to your Leonid Seregin does not set out hypothesis Soviet scientist Agreste about visits to Earth by inhabitants of distant worlds?

Well,” said Sentsov, “we accept Azarov’s assumption as a working one.” hypothesis.

All the time while Matrosov was talking about his beloved hypothesis, Marina looked at him with the same admiration as he looked at her in the Brest Fortress when she spoke about the accumulation of energy in the magnetic field of superconductors.

Hypothesis the complexity of elements is also fully consistent with the phenomena of allotropy. Various substances, conventionally considered as simple, can appear in several forms, possessing completely different properties.

And the fate of Solzhenitsyn, and the fate of Galich, and the fates of thousands of other dissidents arrested or exiled, as well as the fate of Amalrik himself, refute it hypothesis about the lack of police enthusiasm in the regime.

This is where Vaynek remembered hypothesis about the anisotropy of space: some directions are energetically more favorable, others less so, and the fine structure of space is such that when moving in a straight line, and along other ordinary trajectories, energy costs in all directions are averaged, and the anisotropy of space becomes invisible.

In particular, we wanted to find arguments in favor hypotheses that Antarctica is a continent, and not an archipelago of islands hidden under the ice.

Experimental data confirms the fantastic hypothesis space bubbles, but he can’t help himself: bubbles, like Rorik Harutyunyan, are unpleasant to him.

Comparing them with the bioluminescence of their oceans, some Europeans suggested that they were living beings, but their excessive brightness contradicted this hypothesis.

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and de Blainville disputed from different points of view hypothesis Cuvier, and this extremely interesting debate, based on paleontology, was recently resumed in a slightly modified form: Professor Huxley and Owen are one opponent, the other defender of this hypothesis.

This scheme, of course, is quite idealistic, but, considered as hypotheses, it has one advantage: if implemented, the state will be able to realistically determine the extent of the problem of the lower class and at the same time understand its own capabilities that can be used to solve it.

However, only Alfred Wegener formulated this hypothesis, which immediately became the subject of heated debate.

twentieth centuries even arose hypothesis that all the foundations of the Old Testament teachings were borrowed from Babylon.