A 

hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable

phenomenon. The term derives from
the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."
For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis,
the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists
generally base scientific hypotheses on
previous observationsthat cannot satisfactorily be explained
with the available scientific theories. Even though the words
"hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in
common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the
same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a
provisionally accepted hypothesis.
In a related but distinguishable usage, the term hypothesis is
used for the antecedent of a proposition; thus in proposition
"If P, then Q", P denotes the hypothesis (or antecedent); Q can
be called aconsequent. P is the assumption in a
(possibly counterfactual) What If question.
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a
hypothesis," or "being assumed to exist as an immediate
consequence of a hypothesis," can refer to any of these
meanings of the term "hypothesis."
In its ancient usage, hypothesis also refers to a summary of
the plot of a classical drama.

Uses
'hypothesis' refers to a clever idea or to a convenient
mathematical approach that simplifies
cumbersome calculations.[3] Cardinal Bellarmine gave a famous
example of this usage in the warning issued to Galileo in the
early 17th century: that he must not treat the motion of
the Earth as a reality, but merely as a hypothesis.[4]
In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a
provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper
evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics
in operational terms. A hypothesis requires more work by the
researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it. In due
course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or
occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally,
scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model.
Sometimes, but not always, one can also formulate them
as existential statements, stating that some particular instance
of the phenomenon under examination has some characteristic
and causal explanations, which have the general form
of universal statements, stating that every instance of the
phenomenon has a particular characteristic.
Any useful hypothesis will
enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive
reasoning). It might predict the outcome of an experiment in
a laboratory setting or the observation of a phenomenon
innature. The prediction may also invoke statistics and only talk
about probabilities. Karl Popper, following others, has argued
that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, and that one cannot
regard a proposition or theory as scientific if it does not admit
the possibility of being shown false. Other philosophers of
science have rejected the criterion of falsifiability or
supplemented it with other criteria, such as verifiability
(e.g., verificationism) or coherence (e.g., confirmation holism).
The scientific method involves experimentation on the basis of
hypotheses in order to answer questions and explore
observations.
In framing a hypothesis, the investigator must not currently
know the outcome of a test or that it remains reasonably under
continuing investigation. Only in such cases does the
experiment, test or study potentially increase the probability of
showing the truth of a hypothesis. If the researcher already
knows the outcome, it counts as a "consequence" — and the
researcher should have already considered this while
formulating the hypothesis. If one cannot assess the predictions
by observation or by experience, the hypothesis classes as not
yet useful, and must wait for others who might come afterward
to make possible the needed observations. For example, a new
technology or theory might make the necessary experiments
feasible.

Scientific hypothesis
People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis —
often called an "educated guess"[5] — because it provides a
suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may
test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.
According to Schick and Vaughn,[6] researchers weighing up
alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

 Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)

 Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor",
discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers
of entities)
 Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to
multiple cases of phenomena
 Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain
further phenomena in the future
 Conservatism – the degree of "fit" with existing recognized
knowledge-systems
Evaluating hypotheses
Karl Popper's formulation of hypothetico-deductive method,
which he called the method of "conjectures and refutations",
demands falsifiable hypotheses, framed in such a manner that
the scientific community can prove them false (usually
by observation). According to this view, a hypothesis cannot be
"confirmed", because there is always the possibility that a
future experiment will show that it is false. Hence, failing to
falsify a hypothesis does not prove that hypothesis: it remains
provisional. However, a hypothesis that has been rigorously
tested and not falsified can form a reasonable basis for action,
i.e., we can act as if it were true, until such time as it is falsified.
Just because we've never observed rain falling upward, doesn't
mean that we never will—however improbable, our theory of
gravity may be falsified some day.
Popper's view is not the only view on evaluating hypotheses.
For example, some forms of empiricism hold that under a well-
crafted, well-controlled experiment, a lack of
falsification does count as verification, since such an
experiment ranges over the full scope of possibilities in the
problem domain. Should we ever discover some place where
gravity did not function, and rain fell upward, this would not
falsify our current theory of gravity (which, on this view, has
been verified by innumerable well-formed experiments in the
past) – it would rather suggest an expansion of our theory to
encompass some new force or previously undiscovered
interaction of forces. In other words, our initial theory as it
stands is verified but incomplete. This situation illustrates the
importance of having well-crafted, well-controlled experiments
that range over the full scope of possibilities for applying the
theory.
In recent years philosophers of science have tried to integrate
the various approaches to evaluating hypotheses, and the
scientific method in general, to form a more complete system
that integrates the individual concerns of each approach.
Notably, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, both former
students of Popper, have produced novel attempts at such a
synthesis.

Hypotheses, Concepts and Measurement

Concepts, as abstract units of meaning, play a key role in the
development and testing of hypotheses. Concepts are the basic
components of hypotheses. Most formal hypotheses connect
concepts by specifying the expected relationships
between concepts. For example, a simple
relational hypothesis such as “education increases income”
specifies a positive relationship between the concepts
“education” and “income.” This abstract or conceptual
hypothesis cannot be tested. First, it must be operationalized or
situated in the real world by rules of interpretation. Consider
again the simple hypothesis “Education increases Income.” To
test the hypothesis the abstract meaning of education and
income must be derived or operationalized. The concepts
should be measured. Education could be measured by “years
of school completed” or “highest degree completed” etc.
Income could be measured by “hourly rate of pay” or “yearly
salary” etc.
When a set of hypotheses are grouped together they become a
type of conceptual framework. When a conceptual framework is
complex and incorporates causality or explanation it is
generally referred to as a theory. According to noted
philosopher of science Carl Gustav Hempel “An adequate
empirical interpretation turns a theoretical system into a
testable theory: The hypothesis whose constituent terms have
been interpreted become capable of test by reference to
observable phenomena. Frequently the interpreted hypothesis
will be derivative hypotheses of the theory; but their
confirmation or disconfirmation by empirical data will then
immediately strengthen or weaken also the primitive
hypotheses from which they were derived.”[7]
Hempel provides a useful metaphor that describes the
relationship between a conceptual framework and the
framework as it is observed and perhaps tested (interpreted
framework). “The whole system floats, as it were, above the
plane of observation and is anchored to it by rules of
interpretation. These might be viewed as strings which are not
part of the network but link certain points of the latter with
specific places in the plane of observation. By virtue of those
interpretative connections, the network can function as a
scientific theory”[8] Hypotheses with concepts anchored in the
plane of observation are ready to be tested. In “actual scientific
practice the process of framing a theoretical structure and of
interpreting it are not always sharply separated, since the
intended interpretation usually guides the construction of the
theoretician.”[9] It is, however, “possible and indeed desirable,
for the purposes of logical clarification, to separate the two
steps conceptually.”[10]

Statistical hypothesis testing

Main article: Statistical hypothesis testing

When a possible correlation or similar relation between
phenomena is investigated, such as, for example, whether a
proposed remedy is effective in treating a disease, that is, at
least to some extent and for some patients, the hypothesis that
a relation exists cannot be examined the same way one might
examine a proposed new law of nature: in such an investigation
a few cases in which the tested remedy shows no effect do not
falsify the hypothesis. Instead, statistical tests are used to
determine how likely it is that the overall effect would be
observed if no real relation as hypothesized exists. If that
likelihood is sufficiently small (e.g., less than 1%), the existence
of a relation may be assumed. Otherwise, any observed effect
may as well be due to pure chance.
In statistical hypothesis testing two hypotheses are compared,
which are called the null hypothesis and the alternative
hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states
that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation
is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the
alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name
suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that
there is some kind of relation. The alternative hypothesis may
take several forms, depending on the nature of the
hypothesized relation; in particular, it can be two-sided (for
example: there is some effect, in a yet unknown direction) or
one-sided (the direction of the hypothesized relation, positive or
negative, is fixed in advance).
Proper use of statistical testing requires that these hypotheses,
and the threshold (such as 1%) at which the null hypothesis is
rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, all be
determined in advance, before the observations are collected
or inspected.

dependent variable
Statistics: that element of an equation-usually expressed as "Y"-whose value is
determined by the other elements, or independent variables, in the equation-usually
expressed as "X." The amount of variation of the dependent variable caused by the
independent variables can be measured by regression statistical analysis.

independent variable
Advertising research: the independent variable is the element that is subject to
arbitrary (not random) change, in order to test the results. For example: If the
objective were to test audience response to headline copy, keeping all other factors
equal, the sample audience would be subjected to different headline copy to
determine the effectiveness of the various headlines. The audience response would
be dependent on the stimulus provided-in this case the copy; therefore, the headline
copy would be considered the independent variable when it came time to chart the
results.
Mathematics and statistics: the factor that is not dependent for change on other
factors. For example: if y = 3x, the value of y is always dependent on the value
of x, but x can be anything and is therefore the independent variable