---
title: "Bold hypothesis"
chunk: 4/4
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:36:16.007133+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

A falsified conjecture shows the scientist only "what he does not know" or what cannot be the case. However, in reality scientists are more interested in knowing what is the case, and what they can know. That is, scientists are interested mainly in gaining positive new knowledge, which can be used for practical purposes. Scientists are not primarily interested in “knowing that they don't know things”, or in "knowing what is not the case" (other than to rule out possibilities). Scientists want to know what really is the case. Scientific statements according to this Lakatosian perspective are not falsifiable statements, as Karl Popper claimed, but fallible statements. There is an important difference. Falsifiable ideas are testable ideas which can be definitely proved to be false. Fallible statements are testable statements that could be wrong. Fallible statements include both testable propositions and statements of which it is known that they could be wrong, although currently we do not know how to test them yet for their truth or falsity (or, the possible tests are technically not yet feasible).
According to Lakatos, all scientific statements are in reality fallible hypotheses, which scientists at the very least intend or aim to test for their truth-content. This contrasts with metaphysical ideas which are by their very nature not scientifically testable (one can only believe them, or not). In this respect Lakatos and Popper agree. Contrary to Popper's philosophy, however, Lakatos did not regard scientific progress simply as a "trial and error" process, "the bolder the better". It is certainly true that scientists must try things out, and that they can get it wrong. But not just "anything goes"; scientific research is guided by definite "do's and don'ts" learnt from experience, which Lakatos calls "positive heuristics" and "negative heuristics". These heuristics provide guidance for the path of a research programme, by suggesting strategies which are more likely to obtain good results, and strategies which are unlikely to get results.
Lakatos believed Popper's philosophy was inconsistent, because Popper claimed that "definitive falsification" is possible, while also claiming at the same time that "absolute positive proof" of a hypothesis is impossible. In Lakatos's view of science, neither of these claims is actually true. There exist no "crucial experiments" which can either prove or disprove a hypothesis conclusively for all time. We can rarely be absolutely certain about (1) the extent to which the results of tests for a hypothesis show the true nature of objective reality, and (2) the extent to which the results are caused by the design of the tests themselves (due to aspects of the experimental design or research assumptions). All that really happens, Lakatos argues, is that scientists decide to accept the results of important or comprehensive tests as definitive "for all intents and purposes", although, in principle, that methodological decision could later on still be overturned. For example, it happens sometimes that the FDA or EFSA approves the sale of a foodstuff or a medicine after scientific tests, but later reverses the decision, in the light of more or newer tests (the product is taken out of the market). According to this Lakatosian interpretation, the results of scientific tests are never the "absolute or final truth", or "absolute true knowledge", and they always retain a fallible status - they could in principle always be proved wrong later, through renewed tests inspired by new theories. Popper admitted that this is the case, but according to Lakatos, he did not fully think through the implication, i.e. that absolute falsification of a theoretical proposition is strictly speaking impossible (even if, for all intents and purposes, scientists consider it to have been definitely refuted).

== Glamour versus "normal" science ==
Thomas Kuhn argued that Popper's interpretation does not provide a very realistic picture of what most scientists actually do, most of the time. He argued that Popper focused on the “glamorous” side of scientific work in the "revolutionary" episodes of a science, when old solutions are questioned and are not effective anymore, and radically new approaches are being tried out. In Popper's own words, “It is the working of great scientists that I have in my mind as my paradigm for science”. In much, if not most, scientific work in the real world, Kuhn claims, scientists are not mooting bold hypotheses that could overturn established views. Instead, they are working patiently on systematic, detailed tests of a small facet of a much larger theory or research paradigm; Kuhn called this practice "normal science". Thus, scientific progress may come about, not because somebody has a grandiose new idea, but instead because the careful testing of the details of a theory eventually provides definitive scientific conclusions that are generally accepted.

== Continuing relevance ==
Despite these important criticisms, Popper's concept of bold hypotheses continues to be widely used in the academic world. One reason is that, at some level, the concept does make sense, even if (arguably) Popper himself failed to define its role in scientific research very well. Another reason is that academic progress always requires that a scholar does something genuinely new and "breaks new ground". If a scholar only concerns themself with tiny, uncontroversial and fairly trivial claims, they are unlikely to be rewarded very much for their effort. Plausible and credible bold hypotheses are highly valued in the academic world, so long as they are reasonably consistent with (or cohere with) well-established scientific findings, and do not seriously challenge scientific authority. 
In the business community, too, innovation is very important, to find new ways to reduce costs, increase productivity and sales, and raise profits. A bold new idea can be worth a lot of money, and therefore, business people are often sympathetic to bold attempts to reframe what is known already and to create new ideas; without such innovations, they would eventually be defeated by competitors who have a better idea. So the idea of a bold hypothesis also continues to have a place in economics, management theory and business administration.

== See also ==
Ad hoc hypothesis
Courage
Creativity
Critical rationalism
Criticism
Criticism of science
Criticisms of anti-scientific viewpoints
Discovery (observation)
Epistemology
Experiment
Fallibilism
Falsifiability
Growth of knowledge
Hypothesis
Normal science
Occam's razor
Outline of scientific method
Philosophy of science
Problem of induction
Pseudoscience
Scientific method
Scientific progress
Scientific theory
Testability
Varieties of criticism
Verifiability (science)
Verisimilitude

== Notes and references ==