The Dynamical Method of Hypothesis

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Analysis
Conclusion

Introduction

Modern physics represents an extremely branched out sphere of knowledge. Based on some criteria it is divided into several disciplines or sections. The physics division based on studied processes shows that modern physics does not deal with an isolated total of sets of unconnected laws, but with a few fundamental laws or fundamental physical theories covering huge areas of phenomena. In these theories in the fullest and general form, the objective processes in nature are reflected.

In fundamental physical theories, our knowledge of laws of nature appears in so generalized form, that separate aspects of these theories obtain philosophical nature. In that sense, the method of hypothesis is a perfect example of the inductive scientific approach, as well as the philosophical one. This paper analyzes the dynamical method of hypothesis (with consilience), which was discussed in “Particles and waves” by Peter Achinstein, in terms of the reasonability in applying such a method.

Analysis

In explaining the dynamical method of hypothesis, the following example could be given. Let us assume that a certain hypothesis states that, “heat causes the molecules of a matter to move faster, thus making an object expands.” If this hypothesis is true, it correctly explains why heating is making the diameter of a pan increase, but it does not explain why the water in that pan evaporates if it was heated for a while. Let us assume that another hypothesis which states that, “heat causes the molecules of a matter to move faster, reaching a certain temperature, molecules escape gradually changing the state of an object from solid to gaseous”, was added to the first hypothesis to explain the evaporation of the water in the pan.

Accordingly, in the same manner, another hypothesis could be added to the first one to explain steam condensate. The fact that each of these hypotheses is true would correctly explain each of the examined facts and additionally might explain a fact that was not initially taken into consideration, such as the rain and the water circulation in nature.

Each of the consequent hypotheses was a natural extension of the first one. In such a manner the natural growth in this method could be summarized with the term consilience where the observance of one phenomenon coincided with the observance of another phenomenon and their addition resulted in a hypothesis regarding a third one.

Observing this method it can be seen that, although the hypotheses are different in results, for example, regarding the aforementioned example, the first one is expansion, and the second is a change of state, i.e. the second one grew of the first one. The hypothesis of chemistry was combined with a hypothesis of physics. It would be hard to add a hypothesis if there was not a link between them. Regarding different fields of science, this link can be apparent. Theories regarding functions, limits, and derivatives can be added to the hypothesis regarding physical hypothesis to explain acceleration, gravity, etc.

The rationality of this method is similar to the rationality of the hypothesis method in general. Which is the actuality of a certain hypothesis until it is proven wrong. In that sense, this method is concerned with the additions of hypothesizes, rather than with total modification. In that sense, assuming that several hypotheses were combined to prove a certain theory, and then a scientific breakthrough refutes one of these theories.

Accordingly, the consequent results can be proved wrong. Additionally, the approach implemented in this method might not fit into all existing physical and mathematical problems. For example, Goldbach Conjecture is a true hypothesis based on observation. However, it cannot be proved (until now) using another hypothesis. The same can be applied to the Riemann hypothesis.

In that sense, the combination of hypotheses is working so far. We are using proven hypotheses from different fields of study, to prove another hypothesis. If forming an opinion based on rationality in the dynamical method of hypothesis, and omitting hypothesis based on direct observance, it could be stated that most of the current achievements of the contemporary world are based on initial assumptions.

Conclusion

Nevertheless, the importance of the method of hypothesis cannot be overestimated, as scientists tend to prove every hypothesis when possible. The present stage of the development of scientific knowledge is characterized by an escalating level of mathematization. The fact, that the connection of the scientific theory with reality is shown in more and more mediated and indirect forms, complicates the process of practical examination of many theories and consequently finding the truth.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Dynamical Method of Hypothesis

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)