Structured workflow for generating testable scientific hypotheses.
When to Use
- "Generate hypotheses for this research question"
- "What could explain this observation?"
- "Propose testable ideas based on this data"
- "Help me formulate H0 and H1"
- "What hypotheses does this gap suggest?"
When NOT to Use
- Testing/verifying hypotheses (use scienceclaw-verification)
- Designing experiments (use experimental-design)
- Literature searching (use literature-search)
- Writing full papers (use paper-writing)
Generation Workflow
Step 1: Observe
Identify the phenomenon, anomaly, or gap:
- What was observed?
- What is unexpected or unexplained?
- What contradicts existing theory?
- What data pattern needs explanation?
Step 2: Contextualize
Ground in existing literature:
- What do current theories predict?
- What related findings exist?
- Where are the knowledge gaps?
- What alternative explanations exist?
Step 3: Formulate
State the hypothesis formally:
Template: "If [independent variable/condition], then [predicted effect on dependent variable], because [proposed mechanism]."
Null Hypothesis (H0): No effect / no difference / no relationship Alternative Hypothesis (H1): The predicted effect exists Directional: Specify direction (increase/decrease) when justified
Step 4: Evaluate
Score each hypothesis on:
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Testability | _ | Can be experimentally tested? |
| Falsifiability | _ | Can be proven wrong? |
| Novelty | _ | How new is this idea? |
| Mechanism | _ | Is the proposed mechanism plausible? |
| Feasibility | _ | Can current methods test it? |
| Impact | _ | How significant if confirmed? |
Step 5: Prioritize
Rank hypotheses by:
- Total evaluation score
- Risk-reward ratio (impact / feasibility)
- Alignment with available resources
- Potential for publication
Output Format
## Hypothesis [N]: [Short title]
**Statement**: If [condition], then [prediction], because [mechanism].
**H0**: [Null hypothesis]
**H1**: [Alternative hypothesis]
**Variables**:
- Independent: [variable]
- Dependent: [variable]
- Controls: [variables to hold constant]
**Evaluation**: Testability=[X] Falsifiability=[X] Novelty=[X] Mechanism=[X] Feasibility=[X] Impact=[X]
**Priority Score**: [Total/30]
**Key References**: [relevant citations]
**Suggested Test**: [brief experimental approach]
Quality Checklist
- Hypothesis is specific and testable
- Variables are clearly identified
- Mechanism is plausible given known science
- Null hypothesis is properly stated
- Predictions are measurable
- At least one path to falsification exists
- Novel relative to existing literature
- Ethical considerations addressed