8.4 KiB
Scientific Hypothesis Generation: [Phenomenon Name]
1. Background & Context
Phenomenon Description
[Clear description of the observation, pattern, or question that requires explanation. Include:
- What was observed or what question needs answering
- The specific context or system in which it occurs
- Any relevant constraints or boundary conditions
- Why this phenomenon is interesting or important]
Current Understanding
[Synthesis of existing literature, including:
- What is already known about this phenomenon
- Established mechanisms or theories that may be relevant
- Key findings from recent research
- Gaps or limitations in current understanding
- Conflicting findings or unresolved debates
Include citations to key papers (Author et al., Year, Journal)]
Knowledge Gaps
[Specific aspects that remain unexplained or poorly understood:
- What aspects of the phenomenon lack clear explanation?
- What contradictions exist in current understanding?
- What questions remain unanswered?]
2. Competing Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: [Concise Title]
Mechanistic Explanation: [Detailed explanation of the proposed mechanism. This should explain HOW and WHY the phenomenon occurs, not just describe WHAT occurs. Include:
- Specific molecular, cellular, physiological, or population-level mechanisms
- Causal chain from initial trigger to observed outcome
- Key components, pathways, or factors involved
- Scale or level of explanation (molecular, cellular, organ, organism, population)]
Supporting Evidence: [Evidence from literature that supports this hypothesis:
- Analogous mechanisms in related systems
- Direct evidence from relevant studies
- Theoretical frameworks that align with this hypothesis
- Include citations]
Key Assumptions: [Explicit statement of assumptions underlying this hypothesis:
- What must be true for this hypothesis to hold?
- What conditions or contexts does it require?]
Hypothesis 2: [Concise Title]
Mechanistic Explanation: [Detailed mechanistic explanation distinct from Hypothesis 1]
Supporting Evidence: [Evidence supporting this alternative explanation]
Key Assumptions: [Assumptions underlying this hypothesis]
Hypothesis 3: [Concise Title]
Mechanistic Explanation: [Detailed mechanistic explanation distinct from previous hypotheses]
Supporting Evidence: [Evidence supporting this explanation]
Key Assumptions: [Assumptions underlying this hypothesis]
[Continue for Hypothesis 4, 5, etc. if applicable]
3. Quality Assessment
Evaluation Against Core Criteria
| Criterion | Hypothesis 1 | Hypothesis 2 | Hypothesis 3 | [H4] | [H5] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Testability | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | ||
| Falsifiability | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | ||
| Parsimony | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | ||
| Explanatory Power | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | ||
| Scope | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | ||
| Consistency | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] | [Rating & brief note] |
Rating scale: Strong / Moderate / Weak
Detailed Evaluation
Hypothesis 1
Strengths:
- [Specific strength 1]
- [Specific strength 2]
Weaknesses:
- [Specific weakness 1]
- [Specific weakness 2]
Overall Assessment: [Brief summary of hypothesis quality and viability]
Hypothesis 2
[Similar structure]
Hypothesis 3
[Similar structure]
4. Experimental Designs
Testing Hypothesis 1: [Title]
Experiment 1A: [Brief title]
Design Type: [e.g., In vitro dose-response / In vivo knockout / Clinical RCT / Observational cohort / Computational model]
Objective: [What specific aspect of the hypothesis does this test?]
Methods:
- System/Model: [What system, organism, or population?]
- Intervention/Manipulation: [What is varied or manipulated?]
- Measurements: [What outcomes are measured?]
- Controls: [What control conditions?]
- Sample Size: [Estimated n, with justification if possible]
- Analysis: [Statistical or analytical approach]
Expected Timeline: [Rough estimate]
Feasibility: [High/Medium/Low, with brief justification]
Experiment 1B: [Brief title - alternative or complementary approach] [Similar structure to 1A]
Testing Hypothesis 2: [Title]
Experiment 2A: [Brief title] [Structure as above]
Experiment 2B: [Brief title] [Structure as above]
Testing Hypothesis 3: [Title]
Experiment 3A: [Brief title] [Structure as above]
5. Testable Predictions
Predictions from Hypothesis 1
-
Prediction 1.1: [Specific, measurable prediction]
- Conditions: [Under what conditions should this be observed?]
- Magnitude: [Expected effect size or direction, if quantifiable]
- Falsification: [What observation would falsify this prediction?]
-
Prediction 1.2: [Specific, measurable prediction]
- Conditions: [Conditions]
- Magnitude: [Expected effect]
- Falsification: [Falsifying observation]
-
Prediction 1.3: [Additional prediction]
Predictions from Hypothesis 2
-
Prediction 2.1: [Specific, measurable prediction]
- Conditions: [Conditions]
- Magnitude: [Expected effect]
- Falsification: [Falsifying observation]
-
Prediction 2.2: [Additional prediction]
Predictions from Hypothesis 3
- Prediction 3.1: [Specific, measurable prediction]
- Conditions: [Conditions]
- Magnitude: [Expected effect]
- Falsification: [Falsifying observation]
6. Critical Comparisons
Distinguishing Between Hypotheses
Comparison: Hypothesis 1 vs. Hypothesis 2
Key Distinguishing Feature: [What is the fundamental difference in mechanism or prediction?]
Discriminating Experiment: [What experiment or observation would clearly favor one over the other?]
Outcome Interpretation:
- If [Result A], then Hypothesis 1 is supported
- If [Result B], then Hypothesis 2 is supported
- If [Result C], then both/neither are supported
Comparison: Hypothesis 1 vs. Hypothesis 3 [Similar structure]
Comparison: Hypothesis 2 vs. Hypothesis 3 [Similar structure]
Priority Experiments
Highest Priority Test: [Which experiment would most efficiently distinguish between hypotheses or most definitively test a hypothesis?]
Justification: [Why is this the highest priority? Consider informativeness, feasibility, and cost]
Secondary Priority Tests:
- [Second most important experiment]
- [Third most important]
7. Summary & Recommendations
Summary of Hypotheses
[Brief paragraph summarizing the competing hypotheses and their relationships]
Recommended Testing Sequence
Phase 1 (Initial Tests): [Which experiments should be done first? Why?]
Phase 2 (Contingent on Phase 1 results): [What follow-up experiments depend on initial results?]
Phase 3 (Validation and Extension): [How to validate findings and extend to broader contexts?]
Expected Outcomes and Implications
If Hypothesis 1 is supported: [What would this mean for the field? What new questions arise?]
If Hypothesis 2 is supported: [Implications and new questions]
If Hypothesis 3 is supported: [Implications and new questions]
If multiple hypotheses are partially supported: [How might mechanisms combine or interact?]
Open Questions
[What questions remain even after these hypotheses are tested?]
References
[List key papers cited in the document, formatted consistently]
-
Author1, A.B., & Author2, C.D. (Year). Title of paper. Journal Name, Volume(Issue), pages. DOI or URL
-
[Continue for all citations]
Notes on Using This Template
- Replace all bracketed instructions with actual content
- Not all sections are mandatory - adapt to your specific hypothesis generation task
- For simpler phenomena, 3 hypotheses may be sufficient; complex phenomena may warrant 4-5
- Experimental designs should be detailed enough to be actionable but can be refined later
- Predictions should be as specific and quantitative as possible
- The template emphasizes both generating hypotheses and planning how to test them
- Citation format can be adjusted to field-specific standards