Criteria of Adequacy
· Testability
“A hypothesis is scientific only if it is testable, that is, only if it predicts something more than what is predicted by the background theory alone” (Schick 180).
· Fruitfulness
“Other thing being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most fruitful, that is, makes the most successful novel predictions” (Schick 184).
· Scope
“Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that has the greatest scope, that is, that explains and predicts the most diverse phenomena” (Schick 186).
· Simplicity
"Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one, that is, the one that makes the fewest assumptions” (Schick 188).
· Conservatism
· Conservatism
“Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is, the one that fits the best established beliefs” (Schick 189).
Criteria of Adequacy: Claim
Exposure to Electromagnetic fields can cause cancer.
Testability
The hypothesis is very testable. Numerous case studies have been and are still being performed to investigate whether there is a causal link between EMFs and cancer. In these studies people with and without cancers are questioned regarding their use and exposure to items that emit EMFs from cell phones to power lines and other electrical gadgets in the home such as TV’s, microwave ovens and computers. Some studies of the effects of EMFs on cells can indicate whether the cells go into a stress mode at different levels of EMF intensities. These stress modes are indicators for subsequent development of cancer (Blank 2009).
Fruitfulness
The hypothesis proves to be fruitful because it does make successful predictions that there is a link between EMFs and cancer. It also successfully predicts that where EMF exposures are high, there is a greater risk for cancer. It may also provide a novel prediction as to why certain cancers are increasing and provide an additional possibility for research which would be to ascertain whether certain types of cancer have increased as the degree of EMFs have increased in our environment. Additionally it predicts that cancer risks for children particularly with the use of cell phones will be greater because their skulls are thinner and thus EMFs penetrate children’s brains to a much greater degree.
Scope
The hypothesis claims to explain one phenomenon and that is that EMFs are carcinogenic.
Simplicity
The hypothesis does not rely on making assumptions that cannot be explained, that is, it does not rely on the postulation of any mysterious entities. It asserts only that EMFs can be cancer causing. EMFs are measurable and observable and explainable phenomena that do not go against the laws of nature or science.
Conservatism
The hypothesis is consistent with our well founded beliefs. It is consistent with empirical evidence with results from trustworthy observations and scientific tests, with natural laws and well established theory. EMFs are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Studies have shown conclusively that radioactive waves which are another part of the electromagnetic spectrum are strongly linked to the development of cancer and that ultraviolet light is a causal factor in skin cancer. Therefore it is not unreasonable to consider that radio waves emitted from TV’s, Cell phones, power lines and wireless networking may also have the possibility of causing cancer.Criteria of Adequacy: Alternate Hypothesis #1
Weak immune systems make individuals more susceptible to cancers from EMF exposure.
Testability
This hypothesis could perhaps be testable in studies where people were being observed over extended periods of time. For example using cell phones or being exposed to EMFs from power lines provided an acceptable measure for immune strength could be determined such as white blood cell counts. Then one could compare the number of cancers that develop in the people with weak immune systems exposed to EMFs to the number of cancers that developed in people with stronger immune systems exposed to EMFs. The problem is that peoples immune system strength fluctuates depending on personal stress, infections or other illnesses and thus it would be difficult to establish whether or not a weakened immune system made the individual more suseptible to cancer or whether indeed it was the other factors. Testability
A second aspect is that a weakened immune system is often caused by some external or internal factor and thus is a symptom versus a cause. In this case it would be an indicator that something was causing the body a problem and that something might be something that subsequently causes cancer such as EMFs which are known to create celluar stress and damage and undermine the immune system.Thus testing this hypothesis to yeild useful information is problematic. If the hypothesis cannot be tested then we cannot assign any weight to this claim.
Fruitfulness
The hypothesis proves to be unfruitful because it does not make successful predictions between weak immune systems and cancer cause by EMFs. With the degree of variables that could cause a weakened immune system alone one could not predict that a weak immune system makes a person more susceptible to cancer emitted by EMFs.
Scope
This hypothesis claims to predict that a weakened immune system makes a person more susceptible to cancer caused by EMF exposure.
Simplicity
To consider that people with weak immune systems are those who are more likely to develop cancer is to consider weak immune systems as a causal factor for cancer. This is not the best explantion for the phenomenom of cancer since individuals who have stronger immune systems also develop cancer. There is an assumption that a weak immune system is causal versus a symptom. In addition to not being testible this hypothesis lacks simplicity. For example, cancer could be the cause of the weak immune system, or the weak immune system could allow cancer to grow and not fight it off.
Conservatism
The hypothesis will not be able to be proven to be consistent with our well founded beliefs if it cannot be easily tested to yield useful information. Studies show that weak immune systems can allow cancer to grow and that cancer can cause a weakened immune system, though they do not prove that cancer cells are directly emitted from EMFs. Instead studies show that EMFs are what cause a poor immune system that could then lead to diseases like cancer.
Criteria of Adequacy: Alternate Hypothesis #2
Cancer may be hereditary between family members that have lived in the same area for a prolonged period of time.
Testability
This hypothesis would be very testable. Experts have and could continue to study families of similar environments and their medical histories to see if cancer has been passed from family member to family member.
Fruitfulness
This hypothesis does show fruitfulness because it shows that there is a link between one family member’s genetic makeup and another family member’s genetic makeup. It provides a novel prediction for why family members are diagnosed with similar types of cancers around the same age as the previous family member’s age of diagnosis.
Scope
This hypothesis does not have great scope. It only explains the phenomena of cancer being hereditary.
Simplicity
This hypothesis is simple. There are no assumptions being made. Cancer and many other medical conditions have been known to be hereditary and passed on from one generation to another generation.
Conservatism
This hypothesis is conservative, it fits already established beliefs. Many scientific studies have proven to show that certain cancers are hereditary. Beliefs have already been established that family member’s have similar genes.
