At Work Newswire

By Jefferson Flanders

The word “hypothesis” has been passed down to us from the Greek rhetorical tradition; it is a compound: “hypo,” which means “under,” and “thesis,” which can be translated as “a placing, proposition.” The word’s overall meaning, therefore, is “the basis of an argument.”

Developing a hypothesis, then, establishes the base—the foundation—for any argument or problem-solving. Starting with a tentative hypothesis remains a central element in both the scientific method, and in disciplined clear thinking.

Problem-solvers in management, government, law, medicine, or other disciplines often adapt elements of the scientific method: formulating the question, generating a hypothesis or hypotheses, considering the evidence, and settling on the most likely answer or conclusion. Whether corporate financial analysts trying to choose between capital investment projects, or accident investigators looking at the cause of an aircraft crash, or attorneys building a defense in a civil suit, the step-by-step thinking process they employ roughly resembles the practice of science, (albeit often without the experimentation and replication of results that are fundamental to the scientific method.)

This sequential, linear approach isn’t the only way to address problem-solving—there are more unbounded and perhaps more creative ways of thinking available—but it has the benefits of being time-tested and relatively transparent to others.

One or many suppositions?

One common question: is it more effective to start with a single likely hypothesis, and abandon it only if and when solid evidence disproves it, or to test multiple hypotheses before settling on the best possible explanation? While I favor the multiple working hypotheses approach, largely because it fosters a more open process, there are many successful problem-solvers who favor starting with the best initial supposition and looking for its validation.

Early in my career, I worked with an alumnus of one of the top New York management consulting firms who insisted on beginning any project with what he called “a go-in hypothesis.”

My colleague believed that his training and experience allowed him to quickly fashion a highly probable hypothesis, and that the task then became finding the supporting evidence and confirming his conclusions. This caused some tension between us—I wanted to research, fact find, and interview and then mull over the accumulated data before developing any tentative explanations.

He saw it differently, arguing that initial educated hunches usually proved to be correct and that his approach was faster and more decisive. If the “go-in hypothesis” proved wrong, it could always be altered or abandoned.

I had to concede that my preferred method took more time; I argued that beginning the process by listing all of the possible answers or outcomes helped minimize bias and surfaced unpopular or neglected ideas for consideration. We would be less likely to miss something, or overlook a solution. My colleague wasn’t convinced; he placed a greater value on decisiveness (understanding American business culture and its hunger for certainty better than I did) and so we did it his way (he also was senior to me). I did try to keep the process as open to second opinions and alternative explanations.

Since then, I have become more convinced of the benefits of starting with multiple working hypotheses—they naturally spark the questioning process that lies at the heart of critical thinking. A series of questions naturally follow. Have all possibilities been considered (including the bizarre and “unthinkable”)? What suppositions can be ruled out and why? How strong is the evidence supporting a given explanation? What additional information is missing? The simple act of enumerating the possibilities can lead to second thoughts—and second thoughts should be welcomed for the insights they can provide.

The dangers of locking in to a given hypothesis too early in the process has long been recognized. Geologist and university president Thomas Chamberlin noted this more than a century ago, observing:

If our vision is narrowed by preconceived theory as to what will happen, we are almost certain to misinterpret the facts and to misjudge the issue. If, on the other hand, we have in mind hypothetical forecasts of the various contingencies that may arise, we shall be the more likely to recognize the true facts when they do present themselves. Instead of being biased by the anticipation of a given phase, the mind is rendered open and alert by the anticipation of one of many phases, and is free not only, but is predisposed, to recognize correctly the one that does appear.

Moreover, there are practical reasons for considering a number of hypotheses. Whenever proposed solutions are controversial or may face opposition, a problem-solver should be better equipped to provide the reasons for why alternatives were not chosen if multiple hypotheses have been tested and found wanting. (In a way, this can be seen as the equivalent of a student “showing their work” when solving a math or physics problem.)

Considering multiple hypotheses will not insure arriving at the right answer. You may discover that new information supports a hypothesis you ruled out, or disproves one you have selected (in biologist Thomas Henry Huxley’s memorable phrase “…the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”) Yet starting with multiple hypotheses does encourage intellectual openness and broad fact finding; it furthers inquiry and focused questioning; and it recognizes the provisional nature of any of the conclusions we arrive at—all hallmarks of clear thinking.

Jefferson Flanders is an author, educator and independent journalist. He blogs on issues of the day at Neither Red nor Blue.

---

Copyright © 2007 Jefferson Flanders

 Email This Post