hypothesis science drawing

Chemix is an online editor for drawing lab diagrams and school experiment apparatus. Easy sketching for both students and teachers.

 loading….

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
• Independent Variable Definition and Examples
• 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

Science and the scientific method: Definitions and examples

Here's a look at the foundation of doing science — the scientific method.

The scientific method

Hypothesis, theory and law, a brief history of science, additional resources, bibliography.

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is also the body of knowledge accumulated through the discoveries about all the things in the universe. 

The word "science" is derived from the Latin word "scientia," which means knowledge based on demonstrable and reproducible data, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary . True to this definition, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis, a process known as the scientific method. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. One important aspect of the scientific process is that it focuses only on the natural world, according to the University of California, Berkeley . Anything that is considered supernatural, or beyond physical reality, does not fit into the definition of science.

When conducting research, scientists use the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement) that is designed to support or contradict a scientific theory .

"As a field biologist, my favorite part of the scientific method is being in the field collecting the data," Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Marlboro College, told Live Science. "But what really makes that fun is knowing that you are trying to answer an interesting question. So the first step in identifying questions and generating possible answers (hypotheses) is also very important and is a creative process. Then once you collect the data you analyze it to see if your hypothesis is supported or not."

The steps of the scientific method go something like this, according to Highline College :

• Make an observation or observations.
• Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
• Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
• Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
• Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility — no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning uses observations to infer an explanation for those observations.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change), according to the University of California, Santa Barbara .
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against, according to Britannica .

The process of generating and testing a hypothesis forms the backbone of the scientific method. When an idea has been confirmed over many experiments, it can be called a scientific theory. While a theory provides an explanation for a phenomenon, a scientific law provides a description of a phenomenon, according to The University of Waikato . One example would be the law of conservation of energy, which is the first law of thermodynamics that says that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 

A law describes an observed phenomenon, but it doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. "In science, laws are a starting place," said Peter Coppinger, an associate professor of biology and biomedical engineering at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. "From there, scientists can then ask the questions, 'Why and how?'"

Laws are generally considered to be without exception, though some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies. For instance, Newton's laws of motion describe everything we've observed in the macroscopic world, but they break down at the subatomic level.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, scientists must conduct rigorous testing, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is "just a theory" confuses the scientific definition of "theory" with the layperson's definition. To most people a theory is a hunch. In science, a theory is the framework for observations and facts, Tanner told Live Science.

The earliest evidence of science can be found as far back as records exist. Early tablets contain numerals and information about the solar system , which were derived by using careful observation, prediction and testing of those predictions. Science became decidedly more "scientific" over time, however.

1200s: Robert Grosseteste developed the framework for the proper methods of modern scientific experimentation, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His works included the principle that an inquiry must be based on measurable evidence that is confirmed through testing.

1400s: Leonardo da Vinci began his notebooks in pursuit of evidence that the human body is microcosmic. The artist, scientist and mathematician also gathered information about optics and hydrodynamics.

1500s: Nicolaus Copernicus advanced the understanding of the solar system with his discovery of heliocentrism. This is a model in which Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun, which is the center of the solar system.

1600s: Johannes Kepler built upon those observations with his laws of planetary motion. Galileo Galilei improved on a new invention, the telescope, and used it to study the sun and planets. The 1600s also saw advancements in the study of physics as Isaac Newton developed his laws of motion.

1700s: Benjamin Franklin discovered that lightning is electrical. He also contributed to the study of oceanography and meteorology. The understanding of chemistry also evolved during this century as Antoine Lavoisier, dubbed the father of modern chemistry , developed the law of conservation of mass.

1800s: Milestones included Alessandro Volta's discoveries regarding electrochemical series, which led to the invention of the battery. John Dalton also introduced atomic theory, which stated that all matter is composed of atoms that combine to form molecules. The basis of modern study of genetics advanced as Gregor Mendel unveiled his laws of inheritance. Later in the century, Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen discovered X-rays , while George Ohm's law provided the basis for understanding how to harness electrical charges.

1900s: The discoveries of Albert Einstein , who is best known for his theory of relativity, dominated the beginning of the 20th century. Einstein's theory of relativity is actually two separate theories. His special theory of relativity, which he outlined in a 1905 paper, " The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies ," concluded that time must change according to the speed of a moving object relative to the frame of reference of an observer. His second theory of general relativity, which he published as " The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity ," advanced the idea that matter causes space to curve.

In 1952, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine , which reduced the incidence of polio in the United States by nearly 90%, according to Britannica . The following year, James D. Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA , which is a double helix formed by base pairs attached to a sugar-phosphate backbone, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

2000s: The 21st century saw the first draft of the human genome completed, leading to a greater understanding of DNA. This advanced the study of genetics, its role in human biology and its use as a predictor of diseases and other disorders, according to the National Human Genome Research Institute .

• This video from City University of New York delves into the basics of what defines science.
• Learn about what makes science science in this book excerpt from Washington State University .
• This resource from the University of Michigan — Flint explains how to design your own scientific study.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Scientia. 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientia

University of California, Berkeley, "Understanding Science: An Overview." 2022. ​​ https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/intro_01  

Highline College, "Scientific method." July 12, 2015. https://people.highline.edu/iglozman/classes/astronotes/scimeth.htm  

North Carolina State University, "Science Scripts." https://projects.ncsu.edu/project/bio183de/Black/science/science_scripts.html  

University of California, Santa Barbara. "What is an Independent variable?" October 31,2017. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=6045  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Control group." May 14, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/science/control-group  

The University of Waikato, "Scientific Hypothesis, Theories and Laws." https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml  

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Robert Grosseteste. May 3, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/  

Encyclopedia Britannica, "Jonas Salk." October 21, 2021. https://www.britannica.com/ biography /Jonas-Salk

National Human Genome Research Institute, "​Phosphate Backbone." https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Phosphate-Backbone  

National Human Genome Research Institute, "What is the Human Genome Project?" https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project/What  

‌ Live Science contributor Ashley Hamer updated this article on Jan. 16, 2022.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Eerie, orange skies loom over Athens as dust storm engulfs southern Greece

Hidden 'biosphere' of extreme microbes discovered 13 feet below Atacama Desert is deepest found there to date

Chemo side effect caused man's eyelash growth to go haywire

Most Popular

• 2 Giant, 82-foot lizard fish discovered on UK beach could be largest marine reptile ever found
• 3 Global 'time signals' subtly shifted as the total solar eclipse reshaped Earth's upper atmosphere, new data shows
• 4 Rare 'porcelain gallbladder' found in 100-year-old unmarked grave at Mississippi mental asylum cemetery
• 5 'I nearly fell out of my chair': 1,800-year-old mini portrait of Alexander the Great found in a field in Denmark
• 2 'We were in disbelief': Antarctica is behaving in a way we've never seen before. Can it recover?
• 3 George Washington's stash of centuries-old cherries found hidden under Mount Vernon floor
• 4 Scientists create 'toxic AI' that is rewarded for thinking up the worst possible questions we could imagine
• 5 5 catastrophic megathrust earthquakes led to the demise of the pre-Aztec city of Teotihuacan, new study suggests

• Jun 8, 2021

How to draw your research with simple scientific illustrations

Turn sketchbook ideas into scientific masterpieces: a student’s journey

You know the phrase. A picture speaks a 1000 words.

And often, a research paper speaks for much longer than it really needs to. SEVERAL thousand words more beyond what you may want to know. So why don’t we try and make your long story short with your very own scientific illustrations and infographics? And the good news is that you don’t need to be a fancy high-level artist to draw for YOUR science.

Not a Picasso? No problem! But you could be a Da Vinci - most people know him as a famous painter, but he was equally versed in the sciences.

Let us take you through the process of becoming a scientist just like him, one step at a time.

In this blog, Dr. Juan Miguel Balbin, Science Communicator at Animate Your Science, talks about his experiences and life lessons growing up with a sketchbook, and the fundamentals of making simple scientific illustrations to add visibility to your research.

The boy with a sketchbook, now a scientist with a lab book

As a scientist you’ve gone through school. Several levels of school more than what you originally intended. For now let’s cast our minds back to primary school (or elementary for our global readers!). We all had a pencil case with several coloured pencils, broken and blunt ones, and maybe some notes you’d sneakily pass around in class.

For me, I had a sketchbook in there that was just a little bigger than the size of my hand.

Artist lesson #1 : No piece of art in the world is completely original

I liked to draw, but I wasn’t the best at it. I had friends who could draw hyperrealistic animals or put together entire comic book strips. Me? I wasn’t super original. I’d draw characters from my favourite video games or TV shows growing up. But I always felt like I was “copying” from something that already existed. Was I a fraud because I couldn’t come up with my own unique ideas? Little did I know at the time that every artist “copies” and dare I say “steals” ideas as inspiration for their own style. It’s only human to be influenced.

So anyone can draw if your imagination is up for the task!

Artist lesson #2 : Start doodling with a simple medium that’s accessible to you

Eventually my sketchbook ran out of pages, so I wondered if I could go digital. I first tinkered a lot with Microsoft Paint (the classic one that needed Windows XP or older!) as well as Microsoft PowerPoint. These were great starting points for someone wanting to test out digital art and to learn about bitmap vs vector graphics .

Artist lesson #3 : Refine your way of drawing with new tools as you progress

In the end, doodles in Paint and PowerPoint could only go so far when it came to looking professional. So, in high school I picked up classes for Adobe Illustrator (AI) which was industry-standard stuff in graphic design. AI was a fantastic tool to equip myself with to really get that polished look in my work.

But one thing didn’t change. I still drew very simple things, just using new toys.

Artist lesson #4 : Thinking like a scientist makes art easier

I realised that I had a very methodological way of drawing where I would reverse-engineer an image in my mind and list the shapes it was made up of. Wait, was this how an artist thinks? I wasn’t sure. Perhaps this style of thinking paved the way for me on the path to becoming a scientist with a little bit of art and graphic design under my belt. Take the Twitter bird for example!

Artist lesson #5 : If you can draw, you fill a very special niche on a team

Fast forward to University, and I came across the concept of scientific posters. I had a group assignment where we needed to make a poster about insecticide resistance in moths. Nobody else wanted to be responsible for making the poster, so I put my hand up for the job. My group was thankful for someone with a graphic design skillset. I didn’t know what a poster was really meant to look like, except that it shouldn’t be an intimidating wall of text where you would have to squint to see the Size 8 No Spacing Times New Roman.

Instead, we filled it up half-way with pictures and catchy titles while giving a good oral commentary. No intimidating text, just a gigantic moth in the middle of the poster (apologies to those with a phobia!). We scored a very high mark, and it set the bar high for every science poster after.

Artist lesson #6 : Art is your ticket to a good first impression

Heading into my PhD, I was being trained to be a clear and concise scientist. Creativity was gauged on research novelty, not by how prettily I could label up some tubes. What was an artist doing here? Then came my first lab meeting where I presented my initial project proposal. I’ve seen everyone else do theirs, but I wanted to try something different - my own way.

My slides had colourful illustrations of genetically-modified malaria parasites that I would engineer to glow green and red - this was the moment I made my artwork known to my research group and they loved it! However for more formal seminars, the “traditional” slides were needed. Yes that meant reverting back to a bunch of statistics and references. Oh well.

Artist lesson #7 : A story is told better when you use art to show what’s happening

The next step was to present at scientific conferences and excite people with my research! But how could I possibly do this with a project that had mostly negative results? Why was hypothesis A wrong? Because of reasons B and C? How could I tell people this was really hard? With little data on me, I sought to fill up the gaps in my posters and PowerPoints with visual introductions to my topic, drawn schematics of my experiments and used these to tell my story.

And it worked well. Really well.

My storytelling worked well enough to be awarded two prizes at two separate events for the same seemingly basic research project. You don’t need to cure cancer or make a Da Vinci-level painting to make an impact, I certainly didn’t. There’s room for artists of all skill levels in science.

Hopefully at this point you’ve been inspired to give scientific illustrations a try! Let’s now talk about the process of making your graphics and why scientists might hesitate to give drawing a go. I guarantee your next grant or presentation will be GLOWING with these tips.

Identify what shapes make up your research object

“but i haven’t got any drawing skills”.

If you can draw basic shapes, you’re all set. Really, that’s it, plus a healthy dose of imagination. Basic shapes form the basis of any complicated (or simple) drawing.

Okay sure, maybe an owl’s a bit too much. But you can see it’s just made up of a million different shapes. And just like any science experiment there’s method to the madness, so hold on to your pencil and paper. What shapes make up your “owl”?

Let’s draw a cell for example, a red blood cell (my specialty!). A simple red circle is a good place to start. But then you go back into Google Images and find that these cells aren’t just red circles, they’ve got some dimension to them, with a little bit of a dip in the center. So, draw another red circle, but make it a little darker to make it fancy.

Voila! You now have a mostly medically-accurate red blood cell. Of course, you could always add more details, but the point is that beauty lies in simplicity, and science loves to keep things clear, concise and simple . But simple doesn’t need to mean boring and made in a rush. See our article on graphical abstracts to see why you don’t rush these things.

So no, we’re not drawing owls unless you specifically work on owls. Be relieved.

“My work is too complicated for me to turn into a picture.”

In that case, let’s make it less complicated by using symbols.

Symbols are easy to understand and will allow your audience to quickly get a hold on the topic you’re presenting. You can use symbols to illustrate your literature review, methodology, or even as icons for your dot points. Let’s try and make these, using shapes.

microscope (circles and rectangles)

chemical flask (triangles and rectangles)

viral particle (triangles in an icosahedron)

leaf (pointy oval)

atomic models (three ovals and circles)

For researchers who work on more abstract or non-tangible topics, we’ll have to be a little more creative. But this is the fun part! Allow me to introduce metaphorical symbols - your new best friend. These represent broader concepts and methods that could closely tie with your topic and methods. Take these for example.

magnifying glass (representing “investigation”, circles and rectangles)

gears (representing “mechanisms”, circles and squares)

keys (representing the keys to “unlocking the unknown”, circles and rectangles)

thought bubble (representing “hypotheses”, circles)

stopwatch (representing “time needed for a study”, circles and rectangles)

lightbulb (representing “novelty”, circles, rectangles and lines)

ladder (representing “progression”, rectangles)

stick figures (representing “participants”, you know how to make this!)

check boxes (representing “tasks” in your study, squares and rectangles)

Once you have your individual symbols together, you could display them as a scientific infographic like this.

Then give yourself a pat on the back, you’ve earned it for making your first set of scientific illustrations!

“I don’t know what software to use to make my drawings”

Worry not, you likely already have something you can use! Many researchers love to use Microsoft PowerPoint to arrange figures because they’ve already been trained in it. PowerPoint is a fantastic starting point for making illustrations using the Insert shape tool.

Levelling up past PowerPoint? Try out InkScape for free to gain that edge in your vector artwork. We also recommend Affinity Designer which you can access with a one-time payment! Affinity Designer allows you to tinker with both bitmap and vector graphics for that added flexibility.

The holy grail is definitely the Adobe Creative Suite of software products, including Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator and Adobe InDesign. For starters, try out Illustrator! A free trial is available, so give it a try before you commit to a subscription!

“I haven’t got the time to learn to make these myself”

Understandable, completely understandable. Though I would bet that if you’re reading this blog right now that you would be keen to give it a try with some trial and error.

There are also online resources, such as BioRende r , which provide you with base illustrations that you can move around and assemble into a figure yourself.

Alternatively, we’re at your beck and call. Have a look at our gallery to get an idea of the services we provide so we could draw your research for you!

Other tips for new venturing scientific illustrators

An illustration is only good if it can be easily understood! Pair it with an equally descriptive figure legend and/or very clear labels.

Visibility is everything - make sure it is suitably large for your purpose, and is coloured in a way that matches the palette for your poster/presentation etc.

Your pictures tell a story , but they need you to narrate them. Use your illustrations as a tool to better structure your oral narrative.

Once you’re confident with illustrating, why not breathe life into them in a video abstract or animation ?

Take-away points

Every artist starts out simple!

You can draw anything if you can pick out what shapes to use to make an image.

You can tell a story by drawing simple symbols and icons.

We’re only at the tip of the iceberg with what you could do to make scientific illustrations. If you found this blog useful, perhaps you'd consider subscribing to our newsletter ?

Until next time!

Dr Juan Miguel Balbin

Dr Tullio Rossi

#scientificillustration #Twitter

Related Posts

How to design an effective graphical abstract: the ultimate guide

How to Make Cool Animated Science Videos in PowerPoint

How to Select a Great Colour Scheme for Your Scientific Poster

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.

Biology library

Course: biology library   >   unit 1.

• The scientific method
• Controlled experiments

The scientific method and experimental design

• (Choice A)   The facts collected from an experiment are written in the form of a hypothesis. A The facts collected from an experiment are written in the form of a hypothesis.
• (Choice B)   A hypothesis is the correct answer to a scientific question. B A hypothesis is the correct answer to a scientific question.
• (Choice C)   A hypothesis is a possible, testable explanation for a scientific question. C A hypothesis is a possible, testable explanation for a scientific question.
• (Choice D)   A hypothesis is the process of making careful observations. D A hypothesis is the process of making careful observations.

• 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.

2.2: The Scientific Method

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 70778

• Melissa Ha and Rachel Schleiger
• Yuba College & Butte College via ASCCC Open Educational Resources Initiative

The scientific method is a process of research with defined steps that include data collection and careful observation.

Observation

Scientific advances begin with observations . This involves noticing a pattern, either directly or indirectly from the literature. An example of a direct observation is noticing that there have been a lot of toads in your yard ever since you turned on the sprinklers, where as an indirect observation would be reading a scientific study reporting high densities of toads in urban areas with watered lawns.

During the Vietnam War (figure \(\PageIndex{a}\)), press reports from North Vietnam documented an increasing rate of birth defects. While this credibility of this information was initially questioned by the U.S., it evoked questions about what could be causing these birth defects. Furthermore, increased incidence of certain cancers and other diseases later emerged in Vietnam veterans who had returned to the U.S. This leads us to the next step of the scientific method, the question.

The question step of the scientific method is simply asking, what explains the observed pattern? Multiple questions can stem from a single observation. Scientists and the public began to ask, what is causing the birth defects in Vietnam and diseases in Vietnam veterans? Could it be associated with the widespread military use of the herbicide Agent Orange to clear the forests (figure \(\PageIndex{b-c}\)), which helped identify enemies more easily?

Hypothesis and Prediction

The  hypothesis  is the expected answer to the question. The best hypotheses state the proposed direction of the effect (increases, decreases, etc.) and explain why the hypothesis could be true.

OK hypothesis: Agent Orange influences rates of birth defects and disease.

Better hypothesis: Agent Orange increases the incidence of birth defects and disease.

Best hypothesis: Agent Orange increases the incidence of birth defects and disease because these health problems have been frequently reported by individuals exposed to this herbicide.

If two or more hypotheses meet this standard, the simpler one is preferred.

Predictions  stem from the hypothesis. The prediction explains what results would support hypothesis. The prediction is more specific than the hypothesis because it references the details of the experiment. For example, "If Agent Orange causes health problems, then mice experimentally exposed to TCDD, a contaminant of Agent Orange, during development will have more frequent birth defects than control mice" (figure \(\PageIndex{d}\)). 

Hypotheses and predictions must be testable to ensure that it is valid. For example, a hypothesis that depends on what a bear thinks is not testable, because it can never be known what a bear thinks. It should also be falsifiable , meaning that they have the capacity to be tested and demonstrated to be untrue. An example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis is “Botticelli’s Birth of Venus is beautiful.” There is no experiment that might show this statement to be false. To test a hypothesis, a researcher will conduct one or more experiments designed to eliminate one or more of the hypotheses. This is important. A hypothesis can be disproven, or eliminated, but it can never be proven. Science does not deal in proofs like mathematics. If an experiment fails to disprove a hypothesis, then we find support for that explanation, but this is not to say that down the road a better explanation will not be found, or a more carefully designed experiment will be found to falsify the hypothesis.

Hypotheses are tentative explanations and are different from scientific theories. A scientific theory is a widely-accepted, thoroughly tested and confirmed explanation for a set of observations or phenomena. Scientific theory is the foundation of scientific knowledge. In addition, in many scientific disciplines (less so in biology) there are  scientific laws , often expressed in mathematical formulas, which describe how elements of nature will behave under certain specific conditions, but they do not offer explanations for why they occur.

Design an Experiment

Next, a scientific study (experiment) is planned to test the hypothesis and determine whether the results match the predictions. Each experiment will have one or more variables. The independent variable  is what scientists hypothesize might be causing something else. In a manipulative experiment (see below), the independent variable is manipulated by the scientist. The  d ependent variable is the response, the variable ultimately measured in the study.  Controlled variables  (confounding factors) might affect the dependent variable, but they are not the focus of the study. Scientist attempt to standardize the controlled variables so that they do not influence the results. In our previous example, exposure to Agent Orange is the independent variable. It is hypothesized to cause a change in health (likelihood of having children with birth defects or developing a disease), the dependent variable. Many other things could affect health, including diet, exercise, and family history. These are the controlled variables.

There are two main types of scientific studies: experimental studies (manipulative experiments) and observational studies.

In a manipulative experiment , the independent variable is altered by the scientists, who then observe the response. In other words, the scientists apply a treatment . An example would be exposing developing mice to TCDD and comparing the rate of birth defects to a control group. The control group  is group of test subjects that are as similar as possible to all other test subjects, with the exception that they don’t receive the experimental treatment (those that do receive it are known as the experimental, treatment, or test group ). The purpose of the control group is to establish what the dependent variable would be under normal conditions, in the absence of the experimental treatment. It serves as a baseline to which the test group can be compared. In this example, the control group would contain mice that were not exposed to TCDD but were otherwise handled the same way as the other mice (figure \(\PageIndex{e}\))

In an observational study , scientists examine multiple samples with and without the presumed cause. An example would be monitoring the health of veterans who had varying levels of exposure to Agent Orange.

Scientific studies contain many  replicates.  Multiple samples ensure that any observed pattern is due to the treatment rather than naturally occurring differences between individuals. A scientific study should also be repeatable , meaning that if it is conducted again, following the same procedure, it should reproduce the same general results. Additionally, multiple studies will ultimately test the same hypothesis.

Finally, the data are collected and the results are analyzed. As described in the Math Blast chapter, statistics can be used to describe the data and summarize data. They also provide a criterion for deciding whether the pattern in the data is strong enough to support the hypothesis.

The manipulative experiment in our example found that mice exposed to high levels of 2,4,5-T (a component of Agent Orange) or TCDD (a contaminant found in Agent Orange) during development had a cleft palate birth defect more frequently than control mice (figure \(\PageIndex{f}\)). Mice embryos were also more likely to die when exposed to TCDD compared to controls. 

An observational study found that self-reported exposure to Agent Orange was positively correlated with incidence of multiple diseases in Korean veterans of the Vietnam War, including various cancers, diseases of the cardiovascular and nervous systems, skin diseases, and psychological disorders. Note that a  positive correlation  simply means that the independent and dependent variables both increase or decrease together, but further data, such as the evidence provided by manipulative experiments is needed to document a  cause-and-effect  relationship . (A  negative correlation  occurs when one variable increases as the other decreases.)

Lastly, scientists make a conclusion regarding whether the data support the hypothesis. In the case of Agent Orange, the data, that mice exposed to TCDD and 2,4,5-T had higher frequencies of cleft palate, matches the prediction. Additionally, veterans exposed to Agent Orange had higher rates of certain diseases, further supporting the hypothesis. We can thus accept the hypothesis that Agent Orange increases   the incidence of birth defects and disease.

In practice, the scientific method is not as rigid and structured as it might first appear. Sometimes an experiment leads to conclusions that favor a change in approach; often, an experiment brings entirely new scientific questions to the puzzle. Many times, science does not operate in a linear fashion; instead, scientists continually draw inferences and make generalizations, finding patterns as their research proceeds (figure \(\PageIndex{g}\)). Even if the hypothesis was supported, scientists may still continue to test it in different ways. For example, scientists explore the impacts of Agent Orange, examining long-term health impacts as Vietnam veterans age. 

Scientific findings can influence decision making. In response to evidence regarding the effect of Agent Orange on human health, compensation is now available for Vietnam veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange and develop certain diseases. The use of Agent Orange is also banned in the U.S. Finally, the U.S. has began cleaning sites in Vietnam that are still contaminated with TCDD. 

Building on the Work of Others

Only rarely does a scientific discovery spring full-blown on the scene. When it does, it is likely to create a revolution in the way scientists perceive the world around them and to open up new areas of scientific investigation. Darwin's theory of evolution and Mendel's rules of inheritance are examples of such revolutionary developments. Most science, however, consists of adding another brick to an edifice that has been slowly and painstakingly constructed by prior work.

The development of a new technique often lays the foundation for rapid advances along many different scientific avenues. Just consider the advances in biology that discovery of the light microscope and, later, the electron microscope have made possible. Throughout these pages, there are many examples of experimental procedures. Each was developed to solve a particular problem. However, each was then taken up by workers in other laboratories and applied to their problems.

In a similar way, the creation of a new explanation (hypothesis) in a scientific field often stimulates workers in related fields to reexamine their own field in the light of the new ideas. Darwin's theory of evolution, for example, has had an enormous impact on virtually every subspecialty in biology as well as environmental science. To this very day, scientists in specialties as different as biochemistry and conservation biology are guided in their work by evolutionary theory (figure \(\PageIndex{g}\)).

Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides. Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam . Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1994. 2, History of the Controversy Over the Use of Herbicides.

Neubert, D., Dillmann, I. Embryotoxic effects in mice treated with 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin .  Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Arch. Pharmacol.   272,  243–264 (1972). 

Stellman, J. M., & Stellman, S. D. (2018). Agent Orange During the Vietnam War: The Lingering Issue of Its Civilian and Military Health Impact .  American journal of public health ,  108 (6), 726–728. 

Yi, S. W., Ohrr, H., Hong, J. S., & Yi, J. J. (2013). Agent Orange exposure and prevalence of self-reported diseases in Korean Vietnam veterans .  Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi ,  46 (5), 213–225. 

Attributions

Modified by Melissa Ha from the following sources:

• The Process of Science  from  Environmental Biology  by Matthew R. Fisher (licensed under CC-BY )
• Scientific Methods from  Biology  by John W. Kimball (licensed under CC-BY )

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How to Write a Great Hypothesis

Hypothesis Definition, Format, Examples, and Tips

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

Verywell / Alex Dos Diaz

• The Scientific Method

Hypothesis Format

Falsifiability of a hypothesis.

• Operationalization

Hypothesis Types

Hypotheses examples.

• Collecting Data

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the relationship between two or more variables. It is a specific, testable prediction about what you expect to happen in a study. It is a preliminary answer to your question that helps guide the research process.

Consider a study designed to examine the relationship between sleep deprivation and test performance. The hypothesis might be: "This study is designed to assess the hypothesis that sleep-deprived people will perform worse on a test than individuals who are not sleep-deprived."

At a Glance

A hypothesis is crucial to scientific research because it offers a clear direction for what the researchers are looking to find. This allows them to design experiments to test their predictions and add to our scientific knowledge about the world. This article explores how a hypothesis is used in psychology research, how to write a good hypothesis, and the different types of hypotheses you might use.

The Hypothesis in the Scientific Method

In the scientific method , whether it involves research in psychology, biology, or some other area, a hypothesis represents what the researchers think will happen in an experiment. The scientific method involves the following steps:

• Forming a question
• Performing background research
• Creating a hypothesis
• Designing an experiment
• Collecting data
• Analyzing the results
• Drawing conclusions
• Communicating the results

The hypothesis is a prediction, but it involves more than a guess. Most of the time, the hypothesis begins with a question which is then explored through background research. At this point, researchers then begin to develop a testable hypothesis.

Unless you are creating an exploratory study, your hypothesis should always explain what you  expect  to happen.

In a study exploring the effects of a particular drug, the hypothesis might be that researchers expect the drug to have some type of effect on the symptoms of a specific illness. In psychology, the hypothesis might focus on how a certain aspect of the environment might influence a particular behavior.

Remember, a hypothesis does not have to be correct. While the hypothesis predicts what the researchers expect to see, the goal of the research is to determine whether this guess is right or wrong. When conducting an experiment, researchers might explore numerous factors to determine which ones might contribute to the ultimate outcome.

In many cases, researchers may find that the results of an experiment  do not  support the original hypothesis. When writing up these results, the researchers might suggest other options that should be explored in future studies.

In many cases, researchers might draw a hypothesis from a specific theory or build on previous research. For example, prior research has shown that stress can impact the immune system. So a researcher might hypothesize: "People with high-stress levels will be more likely to contract a common cold after being exposed to the virus than people who have low-stress levels."

In other instances, researchers might look at commonly held beliefs or folk wisdom. "Birds of a feather flock together" is one example of folk adage that a psychologist might try to investigate. The researcher might pose a specific hypothesis that "People tend to select romantic partners who are similar to them in interests and educational level."

Elements of a Good Hypothesis

So how do you write a good hypothesis? When trying to come up with a hypothesis for your research or experiments, ask yourself the following questions:

• Is your hypothesis based on your research on a topic?
• Can your hypothesis be tested?
• Does your hypothesis include independent and dependent variables?

Before you come up with a specific hypothesis, spend some time doing background research. Once you have completed a literature review, start thinking about potential questions you still have. Pay attention to the discussion section in the  journal articles you read . Many authors will suggest questions that still need to be explored.

How to Formulate a Good Hypothesis

To form a hypothesis, you should take these steps:

• Collect as many observations about a topic or problem as you can.
• Evaluate these observations and look for possible causes of the problem.
• Create a list of possible explanations that you might want to explore.
• After you have developed some possible hypotheses, think of ways that you could confirm or disprove each hypothesis through experimentation. This is known as falsifiability.

In the scientific method ,  falsifiability is an important part of any valid hypothesis. In order to test a claim scientifically, it must be possible that the claim could be proven false.

Students sometimes confuse the idea of falsifiability with the idea that it means that something is false, which is not the case. What falsifiability means is that  if  something was false, then it is possible to demonstrate that it is false.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it makes claims that cannot be refuted or proven false.

The Importance of Operational Definitions

A variable is a factor or element that can be changed and manipulated in ways that are observable and measurable. However, the researcher must also define how the variable will be manipulated and measured in the study.

Operational definitions are specific definitions for all relevant factors in a study. This process helps make vague or ambiguous concepts detailed and measurable.

For example, a researcher might operationally define the variable " test anxiety " as the results of a self-report measure of anxiety experienced during an exam. A "study habits" variable might be defined by the amount of studying that actually occurs as measured by time.

These precise descriptions are important because many things can be measured in various ways. Clearly defining these variables and how they are measured helps ensure that other researchers can replicate your results.

Replicability

One of the basic principles of any type of scientific research is that the results must be replicable.

Replication means repeating an experiment in the same way to produce the same results. By clearly detailing the specifics of how the variables were measured and manipulated, other researchers can better understand the results and repeat the study if needed.

Some variables are more difficult than others to define. For example, how would you operationally define a variable such as aggression ? For obvious ethical reasons, researchers cannot create a situation in which a person behaves aggressively toward others.

To measure this variable, the researcher must devise a measurement that assesses aggressive behavior without harming others. The researcher might utilize a simulated task to measure aggressiveness in this situation.

Hypothesis Checklist

• Does your hypothesis focus on something that you can actually test?
• Does your hypothesis include both an independent and dependent variable?
• Can you manipulate the variables?
• Can your hypothesis be tested without violating ethical standards?

The hypothesis you use will depend on what you are investigating and hoping to find. Some of the main types of hypotheses that you might use include:

• Simple hypothesis : This type of hypothesis suggests there is a relationship between one independent variable and one dependent variable.
• Complex hypothesis : This type suggests a relationship between three or more variables, such as two independent and dependent variables.
• Null hypothesis : This hypothesis suggests no relationship exists between two or more variables.
• Alternative hypothesis : This hypothesis states the opposite of the null hypothesis.
• Statistical hypothesis : This hypothesis uses statistical analysis to evaluate a representative population sample and then generalizes the findings to the larger group.
• Logical hypothesis : This hypothesis assumes a relationship between variables without collecting data or evidence.

A hypothesis often follows a basic format of "If {this happens} then {this will happen}." One way to structure your hypothesis is to describe what will happen to the  dependent variable  if you change the  independent variable .

The basic format might be: "If {these changes are made to a certain independent variable}, then we will observe {a change in a specific dependent variable}."

A few examples of simple hypotheses:

• "Students who eat breakfast will perform better on a math exam than students who do not eat breakfast."
• "Students who experience test anxiety before an English exam will get lower scores than students who do not experience test anxiety."​
• "Motorists who talk on the phone while driving will be more likely to make errors on a driving course than those who do not talk on the phone."
• "Children who receive a new reading intervention will have higher reading scores than students who do not receive the intervention."

Examples of a complex hypothesis include:

• "People with high-sugar diets and sedentary activity levels are more likely to develop depression."
• "Younger people who are regularly exposed to green, outdoor areas have better subjective well-being than older adults who have limited exposure to green spaces."

Examples of a null hypothesis include:

• "There is no difference in anxiety levels between people who take St. John's wort supplements and those who do not."
• "There is no difference in scores on a memory recall task between children and adults."
• "There is no difference in aggression levels between children who play first-person shooter games and those who do not."

Examples of an alternative hypothesis:

• "People who take St. John's wort supplements will have less anxiety than those who do not."
• "Adults will perform better on a memory task than children."
• "Children who play first-person shooter games will show higher levels of aggression than children who do not." 

Collecting Data on Your Hypothesis

Once a researcher has formed a testable hypothesis, the next step is to select a research design and start collecting data. The research method depends largely on exactly what they are studying. There are two basic types of research methods: descriptive research and experimental research.

Descriptive Research Methods

Descriptive research such as  case studies ,  naturalistic observations , and surveys are often used when  conducting an experiment is difficult or impossible. These methods are best used to describe different aspects of a behavior or psychological phenomenon.

Once a researcher has collected data using descriptive methods, a  correlational study  can examine how the variables are related. This research method might be used to investigate a hypothesis that is difficult to test experimentally.

Experimental Research Methods

Experimental methods  are used to demonstrate causal relationships between variables. In an experiment, the researcher systematically manipulates a variable of interest (known as the independent variable) and measures the effect on another variable (known as the dependent variable).

Unlike correlational studies, which can only be used to determine if there is a relationship between two variables, experimental methods can be used to determine the actual nature of the relationship—whether changes in one variable actually  cause  another to change.

The hypothesis is a critical part of any scientific exploration. It represents what researchers expect to find in a study or experiment. In situations where the hypothesis is unsupported by the research, the research still has value. Such research helps us better understand how different aspects of the natural world relate to one another. It also helps us develop new hypotheses that can then be tested in the future.

Thompson WH, Skau S. On the scope of scientific hypotheses .  R Soc Open Sci . 2023;10(8):230607. doi:10.1098/rsos.230607

Taran S, Adhikari NKJ, Fan E. Falsifiability in medicine: what clinicians can learn from Karl Popper [published correction appears in Intensive Care Med. 2021 Jun 17;:].  Intensive Care Med . 2021;47(9):1054-1056. doi:10.1007/s00134-021-06432-z

Eyler AA. Research Methods for Public Health . 1st ed. Springer Publishing Company; 2020. doi:10.1891/9780826182067.0004

Nosek BA, Errington TM. What is replication ?  PLoS Biol . 2020;18(3):e3000691. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691

Aggarwal R, Ranganathan P. Study designs: Part 2 - Descriptive studies .  Perspect Clin Res . 2019;10(1):34-36. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18

Nevid J. Psychology: Concepts and Applications. Wadworth, 2013.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

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.

Conclude and evaluate

Part of Biology Working scientifically

• A conclusion sums up what has been found out during an investigation.
• A conclusion should be clearly structured and explained using scientific knowledge.
• At the end of an investigation, evaluate the results and method to judge how reliable the conclusion is.

What do you analyse to draw a conclusion in science?

Show answer Hide answer

Information or data.

Watch this video about how to draw conclusions from information and evaluate experiments.

This video can not be played

To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.

While you are watching, check how patterns in the data from the experiments are linked to the conclusion

Video Transcript Video Transcript

Presenter 2: We have been investigating how the height from which you drop a single ball affects how high it bounces.

Presenter 1: We will also use the results to write a conclusion and evaluate the experiment. What do your results show?

Presenter 2: The line of best fit shows that as you increase the height from which you dropped the ball, then the bounce gets higher also.

Presenter 1: As the independent variable on the x axis increases, so does the dependent variable on the y axis.

Presenter 2: A conclusion sums up what has been found in our investigation. So we can conclude that the greater the height from which you drop a ball, the higher it bounces.

Presenter 1: So, why does this happen then?

Presenter 2: Think about an elastic band. The more energy you use to pull the elastic band back, the further it will travel when you let it go.

Presenter 1: Oh, I see! The higher you drop the ball, the more energy it has when it hits the ground.

Presenter 2: So, the more energy it will have to bounce back up.

Presenter 1: In evaluating this experiment, we need to look at our method and results. When we look at our method, we check that we changed only one variable, measured another one and kept all the rest the same.

Presenter 2: So, we changed the height of the ball drop, which is the independent variable. We measured the height it bounced, which is the dependent variable. We kept all others the same - we controlled them. These include the type of ball and the floor that we dropped it on.

We filmed it so we could slow it down and read the measurement more accurately. Because we did all this, we know we have a valid experiment. When we look at our results we can ask ourselves these questions.

Are the readings a long way from the others? In other words, are there outliers?

And what is the spread of our results?

Presenter 1: To interpret what our results mean, we need to identify any patternsin our data by looking at our graph. We'll try the same experiment,but with a different type of ball.

Presenter 2: Now we can conclude that the greater the height you drop the ball and the type of ball you use, the more energy it will have and the higher it will bounce.

Presenter 1: We have used our knowledge to interpret our results. Then we wrote a conclusion and evaluated our method.

Interpreting data

Step 1 - Data interpretation

A good conclusion describes the relationship between variables, interpreted from a table of data, a graph or a chart.

Step 2 - Experiment carried out

An experiment was carried out to model the concept of erosion. Sugar cubes were shaken in a container and weighed every 20 seconds to see how the mass had changed. Any small parts of the cubes that had broken off during the shaking were removed before the mass was measured.

Step 3 - Results interpretation

Results from the sugar cube experiment would be recorded in a table. Results would show that the longer the sugar cubes were shaken for, the less their mass was. A good conclusion using this information would be: ‘the results show that the mass of the sugar cubes decreased as they were shaken for longer. The conclusion supports the hypothesis because it shows that erosion wears away material over time.'

Step 4 - Data presentation

The results from the experiment can also be shown using a graph, helping to spot patterns in the results. The conclusion would be the same as the one made from the table.

Step 5 - Using scientific knowledge

To make a conclusion better, scientific knowledge should be used to explain the findings. Sometimes using the information from the table or graph is good too. For example, from the sugar cube experiment, the amount of mass lost every 20 secs could be written down .

In the experiment modelling erosion, which was the dependent variable?

Evaluating evidence

More on Working scientifically

Find out more by working through a topic

Bias in science

• count 11 of 11

• count 1 of 11

• count 2 of 11

Writing a hypothesis and prediction

• count 3 of 11

Drawing A Hypothesis

Figures of thought.

• © 2011
• Nikolaus Gansterer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Comprises about 50 large-format diagrams and models
• Includes a large fold-out map of figures of thought
• Includes supplementary material: sn.pub/extras

Part of the book series: Edition Angewandte (EDITION)

11k Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Other ways to access.

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (28 chapters)

Front matter, “a line with variable direction, which traces no contour, and delimits no form”.

• Susanne Leeb

I Must Be Seeing Things

• Clemens Krümmel

Objective Subjectivities

• Jörg Piringer

Grapheus Was Here

• Anthony Auerbach

Asynchronous Connections

• Kirsten Matheus

Distancing the If and Then

• Emma Cocker

Drawing Interest Recording Vitality

• Karin Harrasser

Nonself Compatibility in Plants

• Monika Bakke

Hypotheses Non Fingo or When Symbols Fail

• Andreas Schinner

Wiry Fantasy

• Ferdinand Schmatz

Reading Figures

• Helmut Leder
• Gerhard Dirmoser

Collection of Figures of Thought

Radical cartographies.

• Philippe Rekacewicz
• Axel Stockburger

Dances of Space

• Marc Boeckler

Collection of Emotions and Orientation

• Christian Reder

On the Importance of Scientific Research in Relation to Humanities

• Walter Seidl

Interpersonal Governance Structures

• Katja Mayer
• Art as research
• Denkfiguren
• Figures of thought
• Kunst als Forschung

About this book

Drawing a Hypothesis is an exciting reader on the ontology of forms of visualizations and on the development of the diagrammatic view and its use in contemporary art, science and theory. In an intense process of exchange with artists and scientists, Nikolaus Gansterer reveals drawing as a media of research enabling the emergence of new narratives and ideas by tracing the speculative potential of diagrams. Based on a discursive analysis of found figures with the artists' own diagrammatic maps and models, the invited authors create unique correlations between thinking and drawing. Due to its ability to mediate between perception and reflection, drawing proves to be one of the most basic instruments of scientific and artistic practice, and plays an essential role in the production and communication of knowledge. The book is a rich compendium of figures of thought, which moves from scientific representation through artistic interpretation and vice versa.

About the author

Nikolaus Gansterer, born in 1974, lives and works in Vienna and Berlin. He studied art at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna and completed his post-academic studies at the Jan van Eyck Academy at Maastricht in The Netherlands. He is cofounder of the Institute for transacoustic Research and currently lecturer at the Institute for Transmedia Art in the University of Applied Arts in Vienna. He has an international performance and exhibition activity. As an artist, Nikolaus Gansterer is deeply interested in the links between drawing, thinking and action. In his visual work, he focuses on mapping processes emerging out of cultural and scientific networks, unfolding their immanent structures of interconnectedness. By rejecting a strict differentiation of these two areas, and through a consequent recombination of methods and settings from both fields, he arrives at distinct lines of connection and division, questioning the imaginary threshold between nature and culture, art and philosophy. Nikolaus Gansterer’s fascination with the complex character of figures has led to his book Drawing a Hypothesis (Springer Wien/New York, 2011) on the ontology of shapes of visualizations and on the development of the diagrammatic view and its use in contemporary art, science and theory.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Drawing A Hypothesis

Book Subtitle : Figures of Thought

Authors : Nikolaus Gansterer

Series Title : Edition Angewandte

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0803-1

Publisher : Springer Vienna

Copyright Information : Springer-Verlag/Wien 2011

Series ISSN : 1866-248X

Series E-ISSN : 2196-4858

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : 351

Topics : Arts

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Make Your Drawings Float!

An animating science project from Science Buddies

By Science Buddies & Svenja Lohner

Draw away! Use a little chemistry to make your own moving sketches. 

George Retseck

Key concepts Chemistry Polymer Solvents Material science

Introduction Have you ever wished your drawings would come alive and the stick figures or objects on your paper could move around? It’s not as impossible as it sounds! In this activity you will make your drawing move around by letting it float on water. What makes this possible is the interesting chemistry of dry-erase markers. These markers are usually used to write on whiteboards or glass surfaces and can easily be erased. It turns out they are also perfect for doing science!

Background You might have a whiteboard in your school classroom. To draw on this surface, your teacher probably uses a whiteboard pen or dry-erase marker. The writing from these markers can easily be erased from the whiteboard without leaving any marks.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

This is possible because dry-erase markers contain special ingredients. They include a solvent, which is usually some kind of alcohol. This is used to dissolve the color pigments that determine the marker’s color. In addition, a resin or polymer is added, which is the key to making the ink erasable. In a dry-erase marker the resin is an oily silicone polymer, which acts as a “release agent.” This makes the ink of the marker very slippery and prevents it from sticking to the whiteboard’s surface. This is why the ink can easily be wiped off from a very smooth nonporous surface such as a whiteboard or glass.

You might know dry-erase markers can stain other surfaces such as clothes permanently. This is because fabric doesn’t have a smooth surface, so the ink can soak into its pores—staining them forever! In real permanent markers the resin used is an acrylic polymer that functions as a “binding agent” and makes the ink stick to the surface. Only the type of polymer differentiates a permanent marker from an erasable marker. Find out how this difference affects how your drawings float in in this activity!

Two shallow trays or plates with smooth surfaces that you have permission to draw on with markers

Dry-erase markers (different colors)

Permanent marker

Rubbing alcohol

Paper towels

Preparation

Find a work area that can tolerate water spills.

Fill your cup with room-temperature water and set it next to your trays or plates.

Choose one color of your dry-erase markers and make a drawing on your first plate such as a stick figure, a heart or word. Does it look like the ink is sticking to the surface of your plate?

Let it dry for a couple of seconds and then use a dry finger to wipe across your drawing. Does your finger wipe off the drawing, or can you still see it afterward?

If the drawing came off, make a new drawing. Otherwise, keep the old one. Then pour just enough water onto your plate to cover the drawing. Wait and observe. If nothing happens, shake the plate a little bit. What happens to the ink after a while? Does your drawing begin to float and come to life?

Next use a permanent marker to make a drawing on the second plate. Do you see a difference from how the dry-erase marker looked on the surface?

Let it dry for a couple of seconds and use a dry finger to wipe across your drawing. Does your drawing disappear once you wipe it with your finger? Can you explain why or why not?

If the drawing came off, make a new drawing. Otherwise keep the old one. Then pour some water on your plate to cover the drawing. Wait and observe. What happens to the drawing this time? Does it float? How are your results different from the previous ones?

Extra: Make drawings with different colors of dry-erase marker. Do all of them behave the same way or are they different? Which color floats best?

Extra: What happens if you pour rubbing alcohol on top of your drawing instead of water? Does your drawing still float? Do dry-erase and permanent markers give you the same result? Why or why not?

Extra: Can you erase your floating drawing? Try to pick up your drawing from the water's surface with your fingers. What happens to it when you pull it out of the water? What do you think the material you now have in your hand is made of?

Observations and results Did you get your drawings to float? You should have—but only when using the dry-erase marker. When you make your drawing on the surface of a smooth plate or tray the solvent, or alcohol, that dissolves the ink ingredients will evaporate. This leaves the color pigment and polymer behind on the surface. With the permanent and dry-erase markers, it actually looks like the color is sticking. When you wipe across your drawing with your finger, however, only the drawing that you made with the dry-erase marker will disappear. This is because the oily silicone polymer in the dry-erase marker prevents it from sticking whereas the acrylic polymer resin in the permanent marker makes it stick to the surface.

The fun starts when you pour water on your drawing. You should have observed your dry-erase marker drawing magically detached from the plate and rose to the water's surface. There, it could float and move as if it were alive! The permanent marker drawing should have remained stuck to the plate. This difference is due to the special polymer in the dry-erase marker ink—because this ingredient prevents the ink from attaching to the plate, and the water can slip underneath. And because the ink is lighter than water it can float. When you poured rubbing alcohol on your drawings, however, you should have seen them both slowly dissolve. This is because alcohol is used as the solvent in both markers.

Cleanup Remove all remaining drawings from your plates by rubbing them with a paper towel soaked in rubbing alcohol. Then rinse them with warm water and soap before reusing them.

More to explore Make Your Own Markers , from Science Buddies Chromatography: Be a Color Detective , from Scientific American Soluble Science: Making Tie-Dye T-Shirts with Permanent Markers , from Scientific American Science Activity for All Ages! , from Science Buddies

This activity brought to you in partnership with Science Buddies

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

‘Like a film in my mind’: hyperphantasia and the quest to understand vivid imaginations

Research that aims to explain why some people experience intense visual imagery could lead to a better understanding of creativity and some mental disorders

W illiam Blake’s imagination is thought to have burned with such intensity that, when creating his great artworks, he needed little reference to the physical world. While drawing historical or mythical figures, for instance, he would wait until the “spirit” appeared in his mind’s eye. The visions were apparently so detailed that Blake could sketch as if a real person were sitting before him.

Like human models, these imaginary figures could sometimes act temperamentally. According to Blake biographer John Higgs , the artist could become frustrated when the object of his inner gaze casually changed posture or left the scene entirely. “I can’t go on, it is gone! I must wait till it returns,” Blake would declaim.

Such intense and detailed imaginations are thought to reflect a condition known as hyperphantasia, and it may not be nearly as rare as we once thought, with as many as one in 30 people reporting incredibly vivid mind’s eyes.

Just consider the experiences of Mats Holm, a Norwegian hyperphantasic living in Stockholm. “I can essentially zoom out and see the entire city around me, and I can fly around inside that map of it,” Holm tells me. “I have a second space in my mind where I can create any location.”

This once neglected form of neurodiversity is now a topic of scientific study, which could lead to insights into everything from creative inspiration to mental illnesses such as post-traumatic stress disorder and psychosis.

Francis Galton – better known as a racist and the “father of eugenics” – was the first scientist to recognise the enormous variation in people’s visual imagery. In 1880, he asked participants to rate the “illumination, definition and colouring of your breakfast table as you sat down to it this morning”. Some people reported being completely unable to produce an image in the mind’s eye, while others – including his cousin Charles Darwin – could picture it extraordinarily clearly.

“Some objects quite defined. A slice of cold beef, some grapes and a pear, the state of my plate when I had finished and a few other objects are as distinct as if I had photos before me,” Darwin wrote to Galton.

Unfortunately, Galton’s findings failed to fire the imagination of scientists at the time. “The psychology of visual imagery was a very big topic, but the existence of people at the extremes somehow disappeared from view,” says Prof Adam Zeman at Exeter University. It would take more than a century for psychologists such as Zeman to take up where Galton left off.

Even then, much of the initial research focused on the poorer end of the spectrum – people with aphantasia , who claim to lack a mind’s eye. Within the past five years, however, interest in hyperphantasia has started to grow, and it is now a thriving area of research.

To identify where people lie on the spectrum, researchers often use the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ), which asks participants to visualise a series of 16 scenarios, such as “the sun rising above the horizon into a hazy sky” and then report on the level of detail that they “see” in a five-point scale. You can try it for yourself. When you picture that sunrise, which of the following statements best describes your experience?

1. No image at all, you only “know” that you are thinking of the object 2. Vague and dim 3. Moderately clear and lively 4. Clear and reasonably vivid 5. Perfectly clear and as vivid as real seeing

The final score is the sum of all 16 responses, with a maximum of 80 points. In large surveys, most people score around 55 to 60 . Around 1% score just 16; they are considered to have extreme aphantasia; 3%, meanwhile, achieve a perfect score of 80, which is extreme hyperphantasia.

The VVIQ is a relatively blunt tool, but Reshanne Reeder, a lecturer at Liverpool University, has now conducted a series of in-depth interviews with hyperphantasic people – research that helps to delineate the peculiarities of their inner lives. “As you talk to them, you start to realise that this is a very different experience from most people’s experience,” she says. “It’s extremely immersive, and their imagery affects them very emotionally.”

Some people with hyperphantasia are able to merge their mental imagery with their view of the world around them. Reeder asked participants to hold out a hand and then imagine an apple sitting in their palm. Most people feel that the scene in front of their eyes is distinct from that inside their heads. “But a lot of people with hyperphantasia – about 75% – can actually see an apple in the hand in front of them. And they can even feel its weight.”

As you might expect, these visual abilities can influence career choices. “Aphantasia does seem to bias people to work in sciences, maths or IT – those Stem professions – whereas hyperphantasia nudges people to work in what are traditionally called creative professions,” says Zeman. “Though there are many exceptions.”

Reeder recalls one participant who uses her hyperphantasia to fuel her writing. “She said she doesn’t even have to think about the stories that she’s writing, because she can see the characters right in front of her, acting out their parts,” Reeder recalls.

H yperphantasia can also affect people’s consumption of art. Novels, for example, become a cinematic experience. “For me, the story is like a film in my mind,” says Geraldine van Heemstra , an artist based in London. Holm offers the same description. “When I listen to an audiobook, I’m running a movie in my head.”

This is not always an advantage. Laura Lewis Alvarado, a union worker who is also based in London, describes her disappointment at watching The Golden Compass, the film adaptation of the first part of Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials . “I already had such a clear idea of how every character looked and acted,” she says. The director’s choices simply couldn’t match up.

Zeman’s research suggests that people with hyperphantasia enjoy especially rich autobiographical memories. This certainly rings true for Van Heemstra. When thinking of trips in the countryside, she can recall every step of her walks, including seemingly inconsequential details. “I can picture even little things, like if I dropped something and picked it up,” she says.

after newsletter promotion

Exactly where these abilities come from is unknown. Aphantasia is known to run in families, so it’s reasonable to expect that hyperphantasia may be the same. Like many other psychological traits, our imaginative abilities probably come from a combination of nature and nurture, which will together shape the brain’s development from infancy to old age.

Zeman has taken the first steps to investigate the neurological differences that underpin the striking variation in the mind’s eye. Using fMRI to scan the brains of people at rest, he has found that hyperphantasic people have greater connectivity between the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in “higher-order” thinking such as planning and decision-making, and the areas responsible for visual processing, which lie towards the back of the skull.

“My guess is that if you say ‘apple’ to somebody with hyperphantasia, the linguistic representation of ‘apple’ in the brain immediately transmits the information to the visual system,” says Zeman. “For someone with aphantasia, the word and concept of ‘apple’ operate independently of the visual system, because those connections are weaker.”

Further research will no doubt reveal the nuances in this process. Detailed questionnaires by Prof Liana Palermo at the Magna Graecia University in Catanzaro, Italy, for instance, suggest that there may be two subtypes of vivid imagery . The first is object hyperphantasia, which, as the name suggests, involves the capacity to imagine items in extreme detail.

The second is spatial hyperphantasia, which involves an enhanced ability to picture the orientation of different items relative to one another and perform mental rotations. “They also report a heightened sense of direction,” Palermo says. This would seem to match Holm’s descriptions of the detailed 3D cityscape that allows him to find a route between any two locations.

Many mysteries remain. A large survey by Prof Ilona Kovács, at Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, suggests that hyperphantasia is far more common among children, and fades across adolescence and into adulthood. She suspects that this may reflect differences in how the brain encodes information. In infancy, our brains store more sensory details, which are slowly replaced by more abstract ideas. “The child’s memories offer a more concrete appreciation of the world,” she says – and it seems that only a small percentage of people can maintain this into later life.

Reeder, meanwhile, is interested in studying the consequences of hyperphantasia for mental health. It is easy to imagine how vivid memories of upsetting events could worsen the symptoms of anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder, for example.

Reeder is also investigating the ways that people’s mental imagery may influence the symptoms of illnesses such as schizophrenia . She suspects that, if someone is already at risk of psychosis, then hyperphantasia may lead them to experience vivid hallucinations, while aphantasia may increase the risk of non-sensory delusions, such as fears of persecution.

For the moment, this remains an intriguing hypothesis, but Reeder has shown that people with more vivid imagery in daily life are also more susceptible to seeing harmless “ pseudo-hallucinations ” in the laboratory. She asked participants to sit in a darkened room while watching a flickering light on a screen – a set-up that gently stimulates the brain’s visual system. After a few minutes, many people will start to see simple illusions, such as geometric shapes. People with higher VVIQ scores, however, tended to see far more complex scenes – such as a stormy beach, a medieval castle or a volcano. “It was quite psychedelic,” says Lewis Alvarado, who took part in the experiment.

Reeder emphasises that the participants in her study were perfectly able to recognise that these pseudo-hallucinations were figments of their imagination. “If someone never has reality discrimination issues, then I don’t think they’re going to be more prone to psychosis.” For those with mental illness, however, a better understanding of the mind’s eye could offer insights into the patient’s experiences.

For now, Reeder hopes that greater awareness of hyperphantasia will help people to make the most of their abilities. “It’s a skill that could be tapped,” she suggests.

Many of the people I have interviewed are certainly grateful to know a little more about the mind’s eye and the way theirs differs from the average person’s.

Lewis Alvarado, for instance, only came across the term when she was listening to a podcast about William Blake, which eventually led her to contact Reeder. “For the first month or so I couldn’t get it out of my head,” she says. “It’s not something I talk about loads, but I think it has helped me to realise why I experience things more intensely, which is comforting.”

David Robson is the author of The Laws of Connection: 13 Social Strategies That Will Transform Your Life , published by Canongate on 6 June (£18.99). To support the Guardian and Observer , order your copy at guardianbookshop.com . Delivery charges may apply

• The Observer
• Neuroscience
• Neurodiversity

More on this story

Keep winning at tennis? You may see more images each second, scientists say

VR goggles for mice create immersive scenarios for brain research

Goalkeepers perceive the world differently, study suggests

Science Weekly Could we end migraines for good? – podcast

Science Weekly Has a 25-year-old bet taken us a step closer to understanding consciousness? – podcast

Short daytime naps may keep brain healthy as it ages, study says

Paralysed man walks using device that reconnects brain with muscles

Scientists discover brain signals for chronic pain

Talking to babies may help shape brain structure, research finds

Science Weekly Will psychedelic drugs transform mental health treatment? – podcast

Most viewed.