作業仮説
出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 (2024/07/12 04:09 UTC 版)
作業仮説(さぎょうかせつ、英: working hypothesis)とは、さらなる研究を行う基盤とするために暫定的に受け入れられる仮説[1]。最終的には仮説自身は放棄されるとしても、仮説をたたき台として批判に耐えうる強固な理論が生み出せることを期待してこうした仮説が受け入れられる[2]。仮説というものが皆そうであるように作業仮説も、実験による研究において探査研究する目的と結びつくことがあり、定性的研究において概念的枠組みとしてしばしば用いられるような予測的言明として構築される[3][4]。
- ^ Oxford Dictionary of Sports Science & Medicine. Eprint via Answers.com.
- ^ a b See in "hypothesis", Century Dictionary Supplement, v. 1, 1909, New York: The Century Company. Reprinted, v. 11, p. 616 (via Internet Archive] of the Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, 1911. hypothesis [...]—Working hypothesis, a hypothesis suggested or supported in some measure by features of observed facts, from which consequences may be deduced which can be tested by experiment and special observations, and which it is proposed to subject to an extended course of such investigation, with the hope that, even should the hypothesis thus be overthrown, such research may lead to a tenable theory.
- ^ Patricia M. Shields, Hassan Tajalli (2006). “Intermediate Theory: The Missing Link in Successful Student Scholarship”. Journal of Public Affairs Education 12 (3): 313–334.
- ^ Patricia M. Shields (1998). “Pragmatism As a Philosophy of Science: A Tool For Public Administration”. In Jay D. White. Research in Public Administration. 4. pp. 195–225 [211]. ISBN 1-55938-888-9
- ^ 1805, for example. See p. 118 in The Monthly Review; or Literary Journal vol. XLVII, May–August 1805, London: Printed by Straban and Preston (see its title page for year printed as "M,DCCC,V").
- ^ Peirce, C. S. (1908), "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God", Hibbert Journal v. 7, pp. 90–112. See both part III and part IV. Reprinted, including originally unpublished portion, in Collected Papers v. 6, paragraphs 452–85, The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 434–50, and elsewhere.
- ^ Peirce, C. S., Carnegie Application (L75, 1902, New Elements of Mathematics v. 4, pp. 37–38. See under "Abduction" at the Commens Dictionary of Peirce's Terms: Methodeutic has a special interest in Abduction, or the inference which starts a scientific hypothesis. For it is not sufficient that a hypothesis should be a justifiable one. Any hypothesis which explains the facts is justified critically. But among justifiable hypotheses we have to select that one which is suitable for being tested by experiment.
- ^ Peirce, C. S. (1902), application to the Carnegie Institution, see MS L75.329-330, from Draft D of Memoir 27:Consequently, to discover is simply to expedite an event that would occur sooner or later, if we had not troubled ourselves to make the discovery. Consequently, the art of discovery is purely a question of economics. The economics of research is, so far as logic is concerned, the leading doctrine with reference to the art of discovery. Consequently, the conduct of abduction, which is chiefly a question of heuretic and is the first question of heuretic, is to be governed by economical considerations.
- ^ Peirce, C. S. (1901 MS), "On The Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents, Especially from Testimonies", manuscript corresponding to an abstract delivered at the National Academy of Sciences meeting of November 1901. Published in 1958 in Collected Papers v. 7, paragraphs 162–231; see 220. Reprinted (first half) in 1998 in The Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 75–114; see 107–110.
- ^ See "Peirce Edition Project (UQÀM) - in short Archived 2011年7月6日, at the Wayback Machine." from the Peirce Edition Project's branch at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM), which is working on Writings v. 7: Peirce's work on the Century Dictionary. Peirce worked on the Century during the years between 1883 and 1909. Find "hypothesis" in PEP-UQÀM's list of words in Peirce's charge under "H". "Pragmatism" was also in Peirce's charge (see under "P", but Joseph M. Ransdell reported that PEP-UQÀM's director François Latraverse informed him that John Dewey actually wrote it (see Ransdell's 2006 January 13 post to peirce-l).
- ^ Peirce, C. S. Collected Papers v. 7, paragraph 534, from an undated manuscript.
- ^ Peirce, C. S. (1878), "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, 286–302. Reprinted widely, including The Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–123.
- ^ Thomas Kuhn (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 147
- ^ a b c John Dewey (1938). Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-03-005250-5
- ^ Patrick Rysiew (2007年9月7日). “Epistemic Contextualism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011年5月19日閲覧。
- ^ Abraham Kaplan (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Scranton, PA: Chandler Publishing Company. p. 268. ISBN 0-7658-0448-4. OCLC 711107
- ^ Paul Oppenheim, Hilary Putnam (1958). Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis. 2. 3–36
- ^ Hilary Putnam (1982). “Brains in a vat”. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–21
- ^ Ian Stewart (2003). “Mathematics: Conjuring with Conjectures”. Nature 423 (6936): 124–127. doi:10.1038/423124a. PMID 12736663.
[続きの解説]
「作業仮説」の例文・使い方・用例・文例
- 作業仮説
- 作業仮説という仮説
Weblio日本語例文用例辞書はプログラムで機械的に例文を生成しているため、不適切な項目が含まれていることもあります。ご了承くださいませ。
作業仮説と同じ種類の言葉
- 作業仮説のページへのリンク
