Scientific hypothesis types of rules. Types of scientific and statistical hypotheses. Hypotheses: two categories

An important form of theoretical thinking is a hypothesis - an assumption based on a number of facts and admitting the existence of an object, its properties, certain relationships.

Hypothesis- this is a kind of inference that tries to penetrate the essence of an area of ​​reality that has not yet been sufficiently studied.

Hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes or regular relationships of any phenomena or events of nature, society, thinking.

A hypothesis requires verification and proof, after which it acquires the character of a theory - a system of generalized knowledge, an explanation of certain aspects of reality. For example, the statement about the atomic structure of matter was a hypothesis for a long time. Confirmed by experience, this hypothesis has turned into reliable knowledge, the theory of the atomic structure of matter. On the basis of the visible, audible and tangible, people penetrate into the invisible. Inaudible and intangible. It is on this mediated knowledge that all science is based.

In science, in ordinary thinking, we move from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete knowledge to more complete knowledge. We have to put forward and then substantiate various assumptions to explain the phenomena and their relationship with other phenomena. We put forward hypotheses that, when confirmed, can turn into scientific theories or individual true judgments, or, conversely, be refuted and turn out to be false judgments.

Types of hypotheses

Depending on the degree of generality, scientific hypotheses can be divided into general, particular, individual.

General hypothesis - this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, laws and patterns of natural and social phenomena, as well as the patterns of human mental activity. General hypotheses are put forward in order to explain the whole class of the described phenomena, to deduce the regular nature of their relationships at any time and in any place. Examples of general hypotheses are: the hypothesis about the atomic structure of matter developed in the 18th century by M.V. Lomonosov, the modern hypotheses of Acad. O.Yu. Schmidt and acad. VG Fesenkov about the origin of celestial bodies, hypotheses about the organic and inorganic origin of oil.

Once proven, they become scientific theories and are a valuable contribution to the development of scientific knowledge.

Private hypothesis - this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origin and regularities of a part of objects isolated from the class of considered objects of nature, social life or mental activity of a person.

Particular hypotheses find application both in natural science and in the socio-historical sciences. An atheologist, for example, puts forward a particular hypothesis about the time of origin and belonging of objects discovered during excavations. The historian puts forward a hypothesis about the relationship between specific historical events or the actions of individuals.

Private hypotheses are also those assumptions that are used in forensic and investigative practice, because here one has to infer about single events, people's actions, individual facts that are causally related to
crime.

Single hypothesis - a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origin and regularities of single facts, specific events or phenomena. The doctor builds single hypotheses in the course of treating a particular patient, selecting medicines and their dosage individually for him. In the course of proving the general, particular and single hypotheses, people build working hypotheses.

Working hypothesis - this is an assumption put forward, as a rule, at the first stages of the study. The working hypothesis does not directly set the task of elucidating the real causes of the phenomena under study, but serves only as a conditional assumption that makes it possible to group and systematize the results of observations into a certain system and give a description of the phenomena consistent with the observations. In judicial and investigative practice, when explaining individual facts or a set of circumstances, a number of hypotheses are often put forward that explain these facts in different ways. Such hypotheses are called versions.

The logical law according to which either the proposition itself or its negation is true. The law establishes a connection between statements that contradict each other: one of such statements is true. For example: “Aristotle died in 322 BC. or he didn't die this year." “Tomorrow there will be a naval battle, or tomorrow there will be no naval battle,” etc.
The very name of the law expresses its meaning: the matter is as described in the statement in question, or as its negation says; there is no third option (“the third is not given”).
Z.i.t. was known before Aristotle. However, he was the first to formulate this law, emphasizing its importance for understanding thinking: “There can be nothing intermediate between the two members of the contradiction, but with respect to one thing, it is necessary to either affirm or deny it.”
From Aristotle comes the tradition of giving Z.i.t. different interpretations.
1. The law is interpreted as a principle of logic that speaks of propositions and their truth: either the proposition or its negation must be true.
2. The law is understood as a statement about the structure of the world itself: every object either really exists or does not exist.
3. The law sounds like the principle of the methodology of scientific knowledge: the study of each object must be carried out until then and be so complete that with respect to each statement about this object it can be decided whether it is true or not.
It is often assumed that these three interpretations - logical, ontological and methodological - differ from each other only verbally. Actually it is not. The structure of the world, which occupies ontology, and the originality of scientific research, which is of interest to methodology, are topics of empirical, experimental study. The provisions obtained with its help are empirical truths. The principles of logic do not follow from ontological considerations and are not empirical, but logically necessary truths.
Aristotle doubted the applicability of Z.i.t. to statements about future events: at the moment, the onset of some of them is not yet predetermined. There is no reason for them to happen, nor for them not to happen. “Five years from now it will rain on the same day” - this statement is neither true nor false at the moment. So is its denial. Now there is no reason for it to rain in five years, nor for it not to be. But Z.i.t. asserts that either the proposition itself or its negation is true. Hence, Aristotle concluded, the law should be limited to statements about the past and the present and not applied to statements about the future.
In the 20th century Aristotle's reflections on Z.i.t. prompted the idea of ​​the possibility of a fundamentally new direction in logic. Multivalued logic has been created.
Consistent criticism of Z.i.t. originates from the goal. mathematics and logic L. Brauer. Brouwer's criticism marked the beginning of a new direction in formal logic - intuitionistic logic.
One of the prerequisites for special attention to Z.i.t. is its wide applicability in various areas of reasoning. A person speaks prose or does not speak prose, someone weeps or does not weep, it rains or it doesn't, and so on. - there are no other options. This is known to everyone, which shows how rooted Z.i.t. in our thinking and with what automaticity its application in reasoning is carried out.

conditional inferences

conditional inference

a conclusion that includes premises that are conditional propositions (see: Conditional statement). U. u. may consist of only one conditional

ki, may include, in addition to the conditional, other premises that are not conditional, and may also consist of many premises - conditional propositions. An example of a U.U., consisting of one conditional premise, can be a simple inference called a simple contraposition of a conditional proposition (see: Contraposition laws). Its structure is as follows:

If S is P, then S1 is P1._____

If S1 is not P1, then S is not P. (1)

This means that in order to obtain a conclusion, it is required to take the negation of the reason and the negation of the consequence in the conditional premise and swap them. Example:

If k.-l. If an animal is a mammal, then it is also a vertebrate.

__________________________

If k.-l. If an animal is not a vertebrate, then it is not a mammal either.

The simplest type of inference, containing other premises that are not conditional, can be a conditional-categorical inference: the second premise in it is a categorical judgment. Example:

If this substance is sodium, then the spectrum of its hot vapors gives a yellow line.

This substance is sodium.

The spectrum of its hot vapors gives a bright yellow line. The first premise in these U. at. - conditional judgment, the second - categorical. If the structure of the conditional proposition is written in the form of the expression "A E B", where A, B are categorical judgments, E is a link, "if ..., then", then four varieties (modes) of a conditionally categorical inference can be represented: Here the sign " u" is a negation sign of a judgment and reads "it is not true that...". Among the listed varieties (modes), only modes (1) and (2) are correct: in all cases, if the premises are true, they give true conclusions. The mode (1) is called the ponens (affirming) mode, the mode (2) is called the tollens (denying) mode. Modes (3) and (4) can give false conclusions if the premises are true. Modus example (4):

If n is divisible by 10, then it is also divisible by 5.

This number n is not divisible by 10.

This number n is not divisible by 5.

It is clear that if some fixed number is not divisible by 10, then, depending on the value of n, it may turn out to be divisible by 5: such numbers include 15, 25, 35, etc. Propositions A and B as part of the conditional proposition "A E B " may have a more complex structure: they may, for example, be either conjunctive or disjunctive. Then inferences having the structure (1) and (2) are referred to as modus ponens or modus tollens, but they are not called conditionally categorical inferences (see: Modus ponens, Modus tollens). U. u. may include premises that are only conditional propositions. Example:

If the triangle is right-angled, then the larger side also lies opposite the larger angle.

If the triangle is not right-angled, then the larger side lies opposite the larger angle.

The larger side of a triangle always lies opposite the larger angle.

The common structure of W.u. is the following:

If a work of fiction is devoid of sincerity and truthfulness, then it does not excite the reader, does not arouse deep feelings in him.

If a work of fiction does not excite the reader, does not arouse deep feelings in him, then it does not have a beneficial educational effect on him.

___________________________________________________

If a work of fiction is devoid of sincerity and veracity, then it does not have a beneficial educational effect on the reader. They can include not only two parcels, but many more.

If we take into account not only the variables A, B, C for judgments, but also their denials, then if the following structures are observed, we will receive true conclusions when the premises are true. These are, for example, logical structures: Example:

If I'm free, then I'll be at home.

If I'm not free, I'll be at school.

1) If I am not at home, I will be at school.

2) If I am not at school, I will be at home.

This is U. u. constructed in accordance with the structure (III).

relationships between concepts

Considering the relationship between concepts, it is necessary to define the concepts comparable And incomparable. Incomparable concepts are far from each other in their content and do not have common features. So, "nail" and "vacuum" will be incomparable concepts. All concepts that cannot be called incomparable are comparable. They have some common features that make it possible to determine the degree of proximity of one concept to another, the degree of their similarity and difference.

Comparable concepts are divided into compatible And incompatible. This division is carried out on the basis of the volumes of these concepts. The volumes of compatible concepts coincide completely or in part, and the content of these concepts does not have signs that exclude the coincidence of their volumes. Volumes of incompatible concepts do not have common elements.

For the sake of greater clarity and better assimilation of the relationship between concepts, it is customary to depict using circular diagrams, called Euler circles. Each circle denotes the volume of the concept, and each of its points - the object contained in its volume. Circular diagrams allow you to represent the relationship between different concepts.

Compatibility relationships can be of three types. This includes equivalence, overlap And subordination.

Equivalence. The relation of equivalence is otherwise called the identity of concepts. It occurs between concepts containing the same subject. The volumes of these concepts coincide completely with different content. In these concepts, either one object or a class of objects containing more than one element is conceived. More simply, in relation to equivalence, there are concepts in which one and the same object is thought.

As an example illustrating the relationship of equivalence, we can cite the concepts of "equilateral rectangle" and "square". These concepts contain a reflection of the same object - a square, which means that the volumes of these concepts completely coincide. However, their content is different, because each of them contains different features that characterize the square. The relationship between two similar concepts on the circular diagram is reflected in the form of two completely coinciding circles (Fig. 1).

Crossing (crossing). The concepts that are in relation to the intersection are those whose volumes partially coincide. The volume of one is thus partly included in the volume of the other and vice versa. The content of such concepts will be different. A schematic representation of the intersection relationship is in the form of two partially aligned circles (Fig. 2). The point of intersection on the diagram is hatched for convenience. An example is the concepts of "peasant" and "tractor driver"; "mathematician" and "tutor". That part of circle A, which is not intersected with circle B, contains a reflection of all the villagers - not tractor drivers. That part of circle B that is not intersected with circle A contains a reflection of all tractor drivers who are not villagers. At the intersection of circles A and B, villagers-tractor drivers are conceived. Thus, it turns out that not all villagers are tractor drivers and not all tractor drivers are villagers.

Subordination (subordination). The relationship of subordination is characterized by the fact that the scope of one concept is completely included in the scope of another, but does not exhaust it, but is only a part. When two concepts enter into a subordination relation, each of which is general (but not singular), concept A (subordinate) becomes a genus, and B (subordinate) becomes a species. That is, the concept of "planet" will be a genus for the concept of "Earth", and the latter is a species. There are cases when a single concept can be both a genus and a species. This occurs if the concept of the genus, which contains the concept of the species, refers to the third concept, which is wider than the last in scope. It turns out a triple subordination, when a more general concept subordinates a less general one, but at the same time is in a relationship of subordination with another, which has a larger volume. The following concepts can be cited as an example: "biologist", "microbiologist" and "scientist". The concept of "biologist" is subordinate to the concept of "microbiologist", but is subordinate to the concept of "scientist".

It's a relationship genus -> species -> individual.

In this relation are, for example, the concepts of "planet" and "Earth"; "athlete" and "boxer"; "scientist" and "physicist". As you can easily see, here the scope of some concepts is wider than others. After all, the Earth is a planet, but not every planet is the Earth. In addition to the Earth, there are also Mars, Venus, Mercury and many more planets, including those unknown to man. The same situation occurs in the other examples given. Not every athlete is a boxer, but a boxer is always an athlete; any physicist is a scientist, but speaking of a scientist, we do not always mean a physicist, etc. Here one of the concepts is subordinate, the other is subordinate. Obviously, it subordinates a concept that has a larger volume. The subordinate concept is denoted by the letter A, the subordinate - by the letter B.

In the diagram, the relationship of subordination is displayed as two circles, one of which is inscribed in the other (Fig. 3).

A situation is possible when the general and singular concepts enter into the relationship of subordination. In this case, the general and concurrently subordinating concept is a species. The individual concept becomes an individual in relation to the general. This type of relationship illustrates the subordination of the concept of "Earth" to the concept of "planet". You can also give the following example: "Russian writer" - "N. G. Chernyshevsky. Looking ahead, it can be noted that the relation - > view - > individual" is used in such logical operations with concepts as generalization, restriction, definition and division.

Thus, the relationship of subordination can be simplified in linear diagrams: "genus -> kind -> kind".

The methodological section of the program ends with a description of the hypothesis.

Hypothesis(from the Greek hupotesis - “foundation, assumption”) is a reasonable assumption about the structure of social objects, the nature of the connections between the studied social phenomena and possible approaches to solving social problems” (42, p.59).

A hypothesis can be formulated only as a result of a preliminary analysis of the object. It is a kind of forecast of the expected solution of the research problem. Hypothesis generation affects the entire internal logic of the research process. As a result of testing, the hypothesis is either refuted or confirmed. Hypothesis testing during sociological research is carried out on the basis of deriving hypotheses-consequences from hypotheses-grounds and their empirical verification.

Let's take a look at the hypotheses. First of all, hypotheses are according to the degree of generality of assumptions - foundation hypotheses And hypothesis-consequences .

Foundation hypotheses- these are hypotheses proved with the help of hypotheses-consequences derived from them, they do not always have direct empirical signs.

Hypotheses-consequences are derived from hypotheses-grounds and serve as a means of proving them. These hypotheses require the presence of empirical evidence that can be tested by various means.

Hypotheses-grounds unfold into a long chain of hypotheses-consequences, formulated in less general terms. The verifiability of the hypotheses-consequences will be the proof of the validity of the hypotheses-grounds.

If almost all the hypotheses-consequences derived from the hypotheses-grounds are true, then this indicates a high degree of truth of the hypothesis itself and is the basis for its acceptance. It is unlikely that most of the hypotheses-consequences were confirmed by chance. If the data obtained during the study were not confirmed by the hypotheses-consequences, then the hypothesis is refuted.

In order to increase the confirmation of a hypothesis, it is necessary to strive to put forward as many interrelated hypotheses as possible, and for each hypothesis it is necessary to indicate as many empirical indicators of its variables as possible. Of course, the problem of the truth of the hypothesis is not solved in this way, but the probability of its justification increases.

In relation to the main objectives of the study hypotheses are divided into main And minor .

Main hypotheses indicate the presence of the most significant connections between objects, thanks to them the main problems of the study are solved.

Minor hypotheses point to secondary, but also important enough to solve the main problems of the study of the connection of the object.

The main hypotheses follow from the main tasks, non-basic hypotheses - from non-main tasks. If the hypotheses - foundations and consequences are logically interconnected, then the main and non-basic hypotheses relate to different tasks and, as it were, coexist with each other.

According to the degree of development and validity hypotheses are primary And secondary.

Primary hypotheses put forward in the early stages of the study.

Secondary hypotheses put forward on the basis of testing, instead of primary hypotheses, if they are refuted by empirical data.

Often, primary hypotheses are called "working" ones, since they are, as it were, scaffolding for deducing well-founded hypotheses.

descriptive- this is either an assumption about the essential properties of the objects under study, i.e. classification, or about the nature of different connections between the elements of the object - structural, or about the degree of closeness of interaction connections - functional hypotheses.

Explanatory(or hypotheses about the causes) - deeper, determine causal relationships, identify causes, facts that were established as a result of confirming descriptive hypotheses.

Forecast- help to reveal objective trends in the functioning and development of the objects under study. These are the deepest hypotheses, in practice they are less common, only in large-scale sociological studies.

Hypotheses are usually confirmed, but not always. There are a number of generally accepted requirements that a well-formed hypothesis must meet. Here are some of them.

The concepts of the hypothesis must be clearly defined and remain relevant throughout the study.

It should be available for verification in the course of sociological research (in an empirical study, it is not the hypotheses themselves that are tested, but their consequences, that is, particular provisions that logically follow from the hypotheses).

Concepts that have not received an empirical interpretation should not be included, as this would be impossible to verify. A hypothesis can be very interesting, but if its concepts cannot be measured, then it is impossible to carry out successful sociological research.

It should be simple, clear, concise and clearly articulated. The hypothesis should not be overgrown with a whole forest of possible assumptions and restrictions. It should not be composed with several subordinate clauses.

The hypothesis should not contradict the already known facts that relate to the studied range of phenomena. She has to explain them. For example, one cannot put forward the hypothesis that "the more diverse the work, the greater the job satisfaction," since this contradicts the data available in psychology. After all, it is known that with a certain psycho-physiological type of personality, it is monotonous and monotonous work that gives a person pleasure, and not varied.

Hypothesis testing can be done in two ways: empirical and logical. In the first case, by an appropriate interpretation of the concepts included in it, and in the second case, by restoring the full logical form of the corresponding statements and reasoning.

If the program does not formulate a hypothesis, then this means that the scientific value of the study will be low. After collecting information, the researcher will not be able to adequately interpret the data obtained (tables, graphs, averages, etc.), because in themselves even very interesting answers to individual questions will not be of great value if they do not confirm or refute what or a hypothesis.

Let us formulate some general requirements that a successful hypothesis must satisfy in order to be subject to direct empirical testing.

(a) The hypothesis must not contain concepts that have not received an empirical interpretation, otherwise it is untestable.

(b) It must not contradict previously established scientific facts. In other words, the hypothesis explains all known facts, without exceptions to the general assumption

c) The requirement of the simplicity of the hypothesis follows from the previous rule. It should not be overgrown with a whole forest of possible assumptions and restrictions, it is better to proceed from the simplest and most general basis.

d) This is all the more important to keep in mind if another requirement is taken into account. A good hypothesis is applicable to a wider range of phenomena than the area that is directly observed in the study. Thus, the hypothesis indicated in the example was confirmed on a small test sample of workers (about 250 people) over 30 years old.

(e) The hypothesis must be fundamentally testable given the level of theoretical knowledge, methodological equipment and practical possibilities of research. Although this requirement is also obvious, it is often violated.

(e) Finally, the working hypothesis must be specified in the sense that the formulation itself must indicate the way it will be tested in the present study. This requirement sums up all the previous ones. It assumes that there are no unclear terms in the formulation of the hypothesis, the expected connection of events is clearly indicated, and verification of the assumption does not cause difficulties on the part of methods and organizational capabilities. Inferential hypotheses are specific, that is, those particular consequences that we verify by direct comparison with facts.

A hypothesis is a scientifically based assumption about the causes or relationships of any phenomena or events of nature, society and thinking.

You can define a hypothesis through the following features:

1) a hypothesis is a mandatory form of development of any cognitive process. It is the link between previously achieved knowledge and new facts;

2) the construction of a hypothesis must necessarily be accompanied by an assumption;

3) this assumption is born on the basis of consideration of the material, on the basis of repeated observations.

Hypotheses are divided into two large groups: according to cognitive functions and the object of study. CO According to cognitive functions, descriptive and explanatory hypotheses are distinguished.

A descriptive hypothesis is an assumption that certain properties are inherent in a particular phenomenon under study. These hypotheses are put forward in order to determine the structure of the subject or the features of its activity.

Among descriptive hypotheses, a special place is occupied by existential hypotheses - hypotheses about the existence of an object.

An explanatory hypothesis is an assumption about what was the stimulus for the appearance of the object of study.

According to the object of study, general and particular hypotheses are distinguished.

A general hypothesis is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, laws and relationships of natural and social phenomena, as well as the patterns of human mental activity. These hypotheses are put forward in order to explain the entire class of the described phenomena, to deduce the regular nature of their relationships at any time, in any place. For example: the hypothesis of Democritus about the atomistic structure of matter, which later turned into a scientific theory.

A private hypothesis is a scientifically substantiated assumption about the causes, origin and interactions of a part of objects isolated from the class of objects of nature, social life or mental activity of a person under consideration.

Particular hypotheses are created to find out the reasons for the occurrence of patterns in some sub-set of elements of a given set. Hypotheses in the field of virology are particular, not general, because they are put forward to understand the patterns of individual, only some of the organisms - viruses, and sometimes not even all viruses, but their individual varieties.

There is also such a type of hypothesis as a single one. It is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origins and relationships of single facts, specific events or phenomena.

In the course of proving certain hypotheses, a special type of assumption is put forward - a working hypothesis, i.e., an assumption that is put forward most often at the initial stage of a particular study and does not yet set the task of finding out the cause or pattern. The working hypothesis allows the researcher to build a certain grouping of observation results and give a preliminary description of the phenomenon under study that is consistent with them.

Version - one of the possible explanations for the individual circumstances of the crime or the event of the crime as a whole.

The difference between versions and hypotheses:

a) the subject of a scientific hypothesis is the laws of development of nature and society, the subject of versions are individual isolated phenomena and facts, sometimes very insignificant, but related to the case under investigation;

b) scientific hypotheses can exist and be developed for a long time, years and even decades, and the version must be proven within a strictly established timeframe;

c) scientific hypotheses explaining a phenomenon can be put forward several or only one, but in a forensic investigation the version cannot be the only one;

d) when constructing and testing a scientific hypothesis, the freedom of creativity of a scientist is limited by the need to use laws and means already known to science, methods and methods of cognition, while when building versions, the freedom of an investigator (court) is limited by the code of criminal procedure (facts on the basis of which the truth of some then one and the falsity of other versions must be identified, collected and secured in compliance with criminal procedure laws);

e) after the termination of the investigation, verification of versions cannot be carried out, the decision on this issue of the investigator (court) is considered final - in science there are no final truths;

f) verification of versions is difficult for many subjective reasons, in particular, the desire of the criminal to hide the traces of crimes, verification of scientific hypotheses is associated only with technical difficulties;

g) for the final decision on the truth of the versions, the investigator-judge has a much greater responsibility than the scientist (although in the light of the global problems of our time, scientists are also responsible for the results of implementing their discoveries).

According to the volume of circumstances of the event under study, general and particular versions are distinguished.

General versions relate to the subject of proof in a criminal case as a whole and contain assumptions about the presence (absence) of a crime event and the perpetrators. General versions explain the totality of the essential circumstances of the event, answering the question: what crime was committed? For example, when constructing investigative versions, the investigator should be guided by the following questions: a) what is this event? b) if this is a crime, then who is to blame (who is the criminal)? The first question relates to the objective side of the case (the situation, the time of the event, the previous life of the victim, information about the kidnapped person, etc.). The second question relates to the subjective side of the case (the presence of a person at the scene, personality traits, professional knowledge and abilities, the nature of the offender, the motive for the crime, etc.).

Private versions refer to individual parties and elements of the subject of proof and contain assumptions about individual aspects of the event under study, explain the features and origin of individual circumstances of the crime, individual facts (for example, the motive for the crime, its place, time, weapon).

The division of versions into public and private is rather arbitrary, since private versions are inextricably linked with the general one. The knowledge obtained with the help of particular versions serves as the basis for constructing, concretizing and refining the general version; the general version makes it possible to outline the main directions for putting forward private versions and is the basis for planning the investigation of crimes.

By the nature of the activities associated with establishing the truth in the case, there are investigative, judicial, search and expert versions.

Investigative versions - those that are put forward during the investigation of an event that has signs of a crime, in the event of a criminal case. The subject of building a version can only be an official conducting an investigation: an investigator, a prosecutor, an interrogating officer, etc. After the end of the check, the investigator formulates a “proven charge”, for the court it is a “charge version”, which must be substantiated (or refuted) in the process judicial trial.

Judicial versions (“prosecution versions”) are the court’s assumptions about the circumstances of the crime event in question, the method of its commission, the guilty person, etc. The specificity of the judicial version is that the court is not limited to the “prosecution version”, but along with it necessarily checks the opposite version (contraversion). The court also checks whether all the versions arising from the circumstances of the case that contradict the conclusions of the investigation (in particular, the versions based on the testimony of all participants in the proceedings) have been fully investigated. The nature of a reliable explanation of the facts constituting the subject of proof is acquired only by the version that is objectively confirmed during the investigative and judicial verification and completely excludes all other explanations.

Investigative versions are put forward by operatives in the course of conducting operational-search activities regarding the whereabouts of an escaped criminal, stolen items, missing people, etc.

Expert versions are put forward by specialists from various fields of knowledge (experts) in the process of clarifying the circumstances of the event under investigation. Forensic doctors, ballistas, auto technicians, psychologists, etc. can act as experts. In addition to studying traces and other objects of the situation at the scene of the incident, experts give an opinion based on the results of the analysis of the entire complex of situational factors: the physical and mental state of the participants in the incident, time of day, lighting, etc. d.

According to the validity and logical relationship, the versions are divided into main and counter-versions. The main versions are created on the basis of the factual material available to the investigator in this case. Counterversions are the logical negation of the main version. For example, the main version: the theft in the store was committed by a handyman Gusev; counterversion: someone else committed the theft. Counterversions guarantee the objectivity of the investigation, protect it from one-sidedness and subjectivity.

HYPOTHESIS AS A FORM OF KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

In science, in ordinary thinking, we go from ignorance to knowledge, from incomplete knowledge to more complete; we have to put forward and then substantiate various assumptions to explain the phenomena and their relationship with other phenomena. We put forward hypotheses that, when confirmed, can turn into scientific theories or individual true judgments, or, conversely, be refuted and turn out to be false judgments.

Hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes or relationships of any phenomena or events of nature, society and thinking.

Scientifically substantiated assumptions (hypotheses) must be distinguished from the fruits of groundless fantasy in science. In a letter addressed to scientific youth, IP Pavlov warned against putting forward empty hypotheses. He wrote: “Never try to cover up the shortcomings of your knowledge, even with the most daring conjectures and hypotheses. No matter how this soap bubble amuses your eyes with its modulations, it will inevitably burst and you will have nothing but embarrassment” 1 .

There are incorrect hypotheses, for example, the hypothesis of the immobility of the Earth that existed before Copernicus. The new heliocentric system was outlined by Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) in his main work - in the book "On the Rotations of the Celestial Spheres"; this book, 73 years after its appearance, was included by the Vatican in the Index of Prohibited Publications, where it was listed until 1822. Considering the arguments of the supporters of the geocentric system prevailing at that time, N. Copernicus wrote, in particular, the following: “So, it turns out that in the process proof, which is called μέθοδον (method), they either missed something necessary, or allowed something alien and irrelevant. This could not have happened if they had followed true principles. Indeed, if the hypotheses adopted by them were not false, then, beyond any doubt, the consequences derived from them would be justified.

A hypothesis is a form of development of both natural, social and technical sciences; from the point of view of the logical structure, it is not reduced to any one form of thinking: a concept, a judgment or a conclusion, but includes all these forms in its composition.

Depending on the degree of generality, scientific hypotheses can be divided into general, particular and singular.

General hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, laws and relationships of natural and social phenomena, as well as the laws of human mental activity. General hypotheses are put forward in order to explain the whole class of the described phenomena, to deduce the regular nature of their relationships at any time and in any place. An example of a general hypothesis is Democritus's hypothesis about the atomistic structure of matter, which later turned into a scientific theory; another example is hypotheses about the organic or inorganic origin of oil, etc. If confirmed, the general hypothesis becomes a scientific theory.

Private hypothesis- this is a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origin and relationships of a part of objects isolated from the class of considered objects of nature, social life or mental activity of a person.

Particular hypotheses are created to find out the reasons for the occurrence of patterns in some subset of the elements of this set.

There are also several private hypotheses about the causes of malignant tumors, including the hypothesis of oncogenic RNA containing viruses.

Among the many problems associated with the preparation of long-term space flights, the most serious and least solved, according to scientists, is the problem of the coexistence of humans with viruses in the closed space of ships. Therefore, a very important aspect of biological work is research in the field of virology; and the transformation of hypotheses into scientifically based theories will be of great scientific and practical importance.

We call hypotheses in the field of virology particular, not general, because they are put forward to clarify the patterns of individual, only some of the organisms - viruses, and sometimes not even all viruses, but their individual varieties.

Single hypothesis- a scientifically based assumption about the causes, origin and relationships of single facts, specific events or phenomena. The doctor builds single hypotheses in the course of treating a particular patient, selecting medicines and their dosage individually for him.

Here are a few isolated hypotheses put forward about the painting by Raphael (1483-1520) "Portrait of a woman under a veil (Donna Velata)", written around 1515-1516. It is not known who served as the model for this famous portrait. Back in the 16th century. a legend was born, according to which the “Woman under the Veil” is the beloved of the artist, the beautiful baker Fornarina. Other names were also mentioned: Lucrezia Della Rovere, granddaughter of Pope Julius II; niece of Cardinal Bibiena - Maria, she was predicted to be Raphael's wife. In "Donna Velata" they saw an allegory of earthly love, paired with heavenly love. Judging by the magnificent attire, a noble person posed for Raphael. The veil (il velo), descending from the head to the chest, is a sign of the married position of the lady, and the right hand, pressed to the chest, is a gesture expressing marital fidelity. The similarity of "Donna Velata" with "Sistine Madonna", "Madonna Della Sedia", "Phrygian Sibyl" 5 was repeatedly noted.

In the course of proving a general, particular or single hypothesis, people build working hypotheses. i.e., assumptions put forward most often at the beginning of the study of a phenomenon and not yet setting the task of clarifying its causes or regularities. A working hypothesis allows the researcher to build a certain system (grouping) of observation results and give a preliminary description of the phenomenon under study that is consistent with them. The work of Academician I. P. Pavlov vividly characterizes the methods and goals of constructing a working hypothesis. One of his students and collaborators, Academician P. K. Anokhin, recalls the style of work of I. P. Pavlov:

“What was striking about him was that he could not work for a minute without a completed working hypothesis. Just as a climber who has lost one point of support immediately replaces it with another, so Pavlov, when one working hypothesis was destroyed, immediately tried to create a new one on its ruins, more in line with the latest facts ... But a working hypothesis was for him only a stage through which he passed, rising to a higher level of research, and therefore he never turned it into a dogma. Sometimes, thinking hard, he changed hypotheses with such speed that it was difficult to keep up with him. 6

In a forensic investigation, the hypotheses put forward are called versions. Versions are general, explaining the entire crime as a whole, private, explaining some circumstances or moments of the crime, and single, explaining separate, individual facts: who is the perpetrator, who is the organizer of the crime, if there were several participants, etc. For example, until now various versions of the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy are put forward. The general version is the one that explains the crime as a whole; There can be several private versions: was the president killed by a lone maniac or was it a conspiracy against D. Kennedy, what were the reasons for the murder, how this crime was prepared; isolated versions: what weapon was used to kill the president, who exactly fired, from which room the shot was fired, etc. 7 .

A hypothesis is a scientific assumption that requires experimental verification. Types of hypotheses.

After setting research objectives, the experimenter proceeds to formulate hypotheses. Hypothesis- this is a reasonable assumption about how, in what way you can get the desired result. Hypothesis is the main and most important methodological tool of research. It is with the help of it that the researcher obtains new knowledge, formulates new ideas. Hypothesis formulation systematizes the researcher's assumptions and presents them in a clear and concise manner. Thanks to hypotheses, the researcher does not lose the guiding thread in the process of calculations and it is easy for him to understand after their completion what, in fact, he discovered.

Hypothesis - this is a scientific assumption that follows from a theoretical analysis of the problem, while the named assumption has not yet been confirmed or refuted.

Thus, the hypothesis is formulated on the basis of the problem. Many hypotheses are derived using analogy, following the logical rule: if two objects are similar in a number of existing features, then they can be similar in another specific feature found in one of the objects being compared.

In the methodology of science, there are:

- theoretical hypotheses;

- experimental hypotheses, that is, hypotheses as empirical assumptions that are subject to experimental verification.

Theoretical hypotheses are included in the structure of theories as the main parts. They are put forward to eliminate internal contradictions in the theory or to overcome the discrepancy between theory and experimental results and are tools for improving theoretical knowledge.

A scientific hypothesis must satisfy the principles:

1. Falsifiability (i.e. the hypothesis can be refuted during the experiment);

2. Verifiability (can be confirmed during the experiment).

The principle of falsifiability is absolute, since the refutation of the theory is final. The principle of verifiability is relative, since there is always the possibility of refuting the hypothesis in the next study.

We are interested in the second type of hypotheses - the assumptions put forward to solve the problem by the method of experimental research.

proceeding from content, there are three main types experimental hypotheses:

Hypotheses about the presence of some psychological phenomenon (hypothesis about facts).

Testing hypotheses of this type is an attempt to establish the truth: "Was there a boy? Maybe there was no boy?" For example, “Do ESP phenomena exist or not”, “Is there a “risk shift” phenomenon in group decision making?” etc.

- descriptive hypotheses(used in correlation studies and aimed at studying the structure of the object under study and its functions), the so-called assumptions about the closeness of connections.

Such assumptions include, for example, the hypothesis about the relationship between the intelligence of children and their parents, or the hypothesis that extroverts are risk-averse, while introverts are more cautious. These hypotheses are tested in a measurement study, more commonly referred to as a correlation study. Their result is the establishment of a linear or non-linear relationship between processes or the detection of the absence of such.

- explanatory hypotheses represent an assumption about causal relationships in the object under study.

Proper experimental hypotheses are usually considered only hypotheses of this type. Such an experimental hypothesis includes an independent variable, a dependent variable, the relationship between them, and levels of additional variables.

Gottsdanker R. identifies the following variants of experimental (explanatory) hypotheses:

- counterhypothesis- experimental hypothesis, alternative to the main assumption; occurs automatically;

- third competing experimental hypothesis- experimental hypothesis about the absence of influence of the independent variable on the dependent one; verified only in a laboratory experiment;

- exact experimental hypothesis- an assumption about the relationship between a single independent variable and a dependent variable in a laboratory experiment; verification requires the selection of an independent variable and the "purification" of its conditions;

- experimental hypothesis about the maximum (or minimum) value- an assumption about at what level of the independent variable the dependent variable takes on the maximum (or minimum) value. The "negative" process, based on the concept of two basic processes that have the opposite effect on the dependent variable - when a certain (high) level of the independent variable is reached, becomes stronger than the "positive" one; checked only in a multilevel experiment;

- experimental hypothesis about absolute and proportional relationships- an exact assumption about the nature of the gradual (quantitative) change in the dependent variable with a gradual (quantitative) change in the independent; verified in a multilevel experiment;

- experimental hypothesis with one relation- an assumption about the relationship between one independent and one dependent variable. A factorial experiment can also be used to test an experimental hypothesis with one relation, but the second independent variable is the control one:

- combined experimental hypothesis- an assumption about the relationship between a certain combination (combination) of two (or more) independent variables, on the one hand, and a dependent variable, on the other; tested only in a factorial experiment.

So, everything we've talked about has to do with scientific hypotheses that are formed as a supposed solution to a problem.

Statistical hypotheses - statements about an unknown parameter, formulated in the language of mathematical statistics. Any scientific hypothesis requires translation into the language of mathematical statistics.

To prove any of the patterns of causal relationships or any phenomenon, many explanations can be given. During the organization of the experiment, the number of statistical hypotheses is limited to two: main and alternative, which is embodied in the procedure of statistical data interpretation. This procedure is reducible to an assessment of similarities and differences. When testing statistical hypotheses, only two concepts are used: H1 (the hypothesis of difference) and H0 (the hypothesis of similarity). As a rule, a scientist looks for differences, for example, in the degree of expression of a trait in different samples. As J. Glass and J. Stanley point out, confirmation of the first hypothesis indicates the correctness of the statement at a statistically significant level, and the second one indicates the absence of differences.

After conducting a particular experiment, numerous statistical hypotheses are tested, since in each psychological study not one, but many behavioral parameters are recorded.

So, the experimental hypothesis serves to organize the experiment, and the statistical one - to organize the procedure for comparing the recorded parameters. That is, a statistical hypothesis is necessary at the stage of mathematical interpretation of empirical research data. Experimental hypothesis - primary, statistical - secondary. The rules for formulating statistical hypotheses are discussed when reading the discipline "Fundamentals of Mathematical Statistics". This course will discuss only the rules for formulating scientific hypotheses.

Hypotheses that are not refuted in the experiment turn into components of theoretical knowledge about reality: facts, regularities, laws.

The process of putting forward and refuting hypotheses can be considered the main and most creative stage of the researcher's activity. It has been established that the quantity and quality of hypotheses is determined by the creativity (general creative ability) of the experimenter - the "generator of ideas".

Let's sum up the intermediate result. The theory cannot be directly tested experimentally.. Theoretical statements are universal; particular consequences are derived from them, which are called hypotheses. They should be meaningful, operational (potentially refutable) and formulated in the form of two alternatives. The theory is refuted if the particular consequences derived from it are not confirmed in the experiment.

The conclusions that the result of the experiment allows to draw are asymmetric: a hypothesis can be rejected, but it can never be finally accepted. Any hypothesis is open for further testing.