Fact vs. Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law
Facts, theories, hypotheses, and scientific laws are fundamental elements in science. For example, something that has been consistently validated and is generally accepted as accurate is referred to as a fact (Thomas, 2021). Facts are based on empirical data and are perceived as reliable information (Thomas, 2021). Likewise, a hypothesis is a claim or interpretation based on little evidence that is a foundation for further research (Thomas, 2021).
A theory can be described as an evidence-based account of a phenomenon in the natural environment, where laws, facts, and hypotheses are included (Thomas, 2021). Then, scientific laws are propositions that define or forecast various natural occurrences and have their foundation in ongoing experiments or assessments (Thomas, 2021). Notably, a scientific law is different from a theory in terms of explanations. While theories focus on the underlying mechanisms of the phenomena, laws focus on patterns.
Overall, when focusing on each mentioned element, it is worth emphasizing that there is no hierarchy. In other words, one element is not more credible than the other. In turn, each element represents a different stage in science and the level of empirical data required for this element. In such a case, all elements, such as theories and laws, can coexist, where theories bring more in-depth information.
The Most Common Cognitive Bias: How to Investigate Hypotheses
In the scientific field, investigating hypotheses mainly depends on the nature of the hypothesis and the study. However, in general, methods of investigating and confirming the hypothesis involve a combination of deductive and inductive reasoning, where it is both proven and challenged (Thomas, 2021). For example, researchers can focus on verifying the hypothesis in the study. At this point, they will look for approaches that will make it possible to prove the hypothesis through the collected and analyzed data (Thomas, 2021). By building the foundation for the research and focusing on the evidence, researchers will strive to confirm the hypothesis.
On the other hand, researchers can also use other ways to investigate the hypothesis. Instead of focusing on confirmation, they can rely on challenging it. In such a case, a hypothesis is formulated to make it possible to be proven false (Thomas, 2021). By testing the hypothesis and constantly challenging it, it becomes stranger since it will be possible to determine its limitations and areas in which it will need more work. Thus, such an approach makes a hypothesis more valid and credible (Thomas, 2021). Thus, one can see that while the confirmation process helps identify the merits of the hypothesis, the disconfirmation process focuses on its weaknesses and limitations.
Reference
Thomas, C. G. (2021). Research methodology and scientific writing. Springer International Publishing.