Question

Based on fossilized evidence, there are scientific claims made about the evolution of certain species. If a scientist studying the fossils of a specific species had a hypothesis other than what was currently accepted, what steps should be taken to have the alternative hypothesis considered?
Answer







The scientist should publish the alternative hypothesis in a popular magazine to gain public support.








If an alternative hypothesis sounds plausible it could be used in place of the original hypothesis.








It is useful to test alternative hypotheses

Answer 1

It is useful to test alternative hypotheses and know that they are incorrect.








Since the original hypothesis is untestable given the circumstances, another one is more likely to be correct.

Answer 2

Sometimes in the field of science, members of the scientific community will come up with hypotheses which differ from the original.

A hypothesis, alternative or otherwise, is not simply published to garner support. After all, the hypothesis needs to be tested, as scientists will not truly give support when they have no facts or results on a give hypothesis.

In that same train of though, you cannot simply replace a hypothesis with another simply because the alternate sounds plausible. Tests must be done to support the alternate.

I'm confused as to whether there are two options about testing the hypothesis. The page got split, so it looks as if the answer either was duplicated or maybe there actually are two options.

Either way, hypotheses must be tested before any further actions are taken. Such is the scientific method. Perhaps the tests will support the alternate theory. In this case, with enough evidence, a paper can be published and undergo peer review by the scientific community. On the other hand, testing the alternate hypothesis may show that there is no evidence supporting that view. This happens all the time in science. Negative results are not necessarily bad; they simply show what is not the case. In fact, I can't remember the name of the publication, but there was at one point a scientific publication of all the tests that simply didn't work and why.

The last answer given is confusing to me. The "original hypothesis" in question must be the original view of how a species evolved. Perhaps one cannot conduct an experiment themselves; however, for that hypothesis to be in place, there ought to be significant evidence on why such an evolutionary model is thought to be the case. Even if one cannot conduct the experiment, he or she can look at the findings of others to see if there is any validity to their case, and how it compares to this alternate hypothesis and its support. Judging by that, one ought to be able to which one seems more likely.