By today, all but a few of you have consulted with me on a plan to develop your Hypotheses to reveal the most intriguing research questions you can imagine.
You’re smart people and good students. You’re in class because you want to challenge yourself and learn to do something new, or differently, or better. So, here’s your chance. The “fallback topics” and themes you’ve written about in other classes aren’t as close to the top of the grade scale in this class as they may have been.
Let’s take far-fetched example of a way to turn an “obvious answer” into something more intriguing.
- In September, 2020, forest fires were raging through California, clearly fueled by environmental conditions worsened by the warming global climate, burning a million acres of timerberland incredibly quickly.
- The president suggested that the cause of the devastation was the failure of the State of California to “sweep the forest floor” clear of leaves and fallen branches that, as he described it, “explode like matchsticks.”
- Any sensible person who contemplates the prospect of sending crews into a million acres of forest with leaf blowers recognizes the president’s solution as the ravings of a madman.
- But . . . what if there’s a point to this insanity?
- What if, every mile or so (you name the distance), a broad band of woodland was clearcut and the ground kept clear, creating a line that a raging fire would not cross.
- The condition of the forest floor for that mile (5 miles?) would be irrelevant.
- Fires that used to rage for 5 miles and then keep going another 10, and another 10, would burn for 5 miles and then stop.
Do you see what I mean? Find your topic. Scan the prevailing opinions. Reject them. Invent a new one that doesn’t at first seem to have much merit. And then bear down on that not-obvious, non-intuitive premise to see what’s there.
Leave a brief Reply that indicates whether this illustration was valuable.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
In opinion on how to stop forest fires is to put water reserves in the forest in the form of trees to not stand out too much, and if the chance of fire they would spray the water to prevent it
This illustration is really helpful because it basically shows that if you have a hypothesis it doesn’t really matter if it is accurate or not. The point of your hypothesis is to get to the bottom of your original problem, just because it isn’t the solution that your hypothesis suggested does not mean you are wrong.
the illustration it’s really clear and show us a 100% how bad is and the danger can be happened with all the demolition so in that case the point of our hypothesis is to keep our self-safe from it and at the same time there is a hypothesis that we cannot said that is not going to happened at all, so it doesn’t mean what we try to say is wrong but in the same time is not right so it’s kind of fifty fifty.
The illustration of the forest fire is very valuable because it clearly demonstrates how severe and rapid fires spread throughout an area.
How the picture was shown emphasized how important it is to take care of the forest. On the other hand, there could be another cause that produced the forest fire.
I think this illustration was helpful because sometimes I can be a visual learner. The diagram of what a forest could look like every 5 miles was valuable.
This illustration was valuable to me because it simplified the idea of what a good hypothesis should look like. If people have already proven your original hypothesis, then there is nothing new to prove; finding a new counterintuitive hypothesis will have better results and welcome new readers. You can always prove your hypothesis wrong and change your position on the argument, your reader will never know you switched sides in the process.
In my opinion, this is helpful for your hypothesis cause it shows if it’s accurate or not. The point is that your hypothesis is to get the original problem and see if you can prove it to be true or wrong. Stopping the forest fire requires water to be placed around the forest so that when a fire happens they could spray the water over it to but it out. (10/02)
It would be helpful to firefighters in an emergency if the forest fires were in five mile boxes rather than a million acre piece of land. Although it would take several thousand hours of man power and many resources, this may be something to consider if it could save many lives and homes from forest fires.
This illustrates how horrible the wildfires are and the issues that are caused because of them. In this situation or any situation with a hypothesis that is seen to be not true. It doesn’t mean that you are completely wrong. You are still able to prove what you found from the hypothesis you used. Whatever you learn from your hypothesis, you are able to prove it with your thesis.
The illustration is valuable because it doesn’t immediately throw the original outrageous claim away. The original claim was bad not because it wouldn’t stop the fires, it bad because it isn’t practical. The illustration takes what is good about the claim, and gives a more reasonable and practical solution that could actually be applied.
The illustration above shows the process for developing a good hypothesis. It might seem outlandish to want to sweep the forest floor clear but the idea has some merit to it. By cutting or “sweeping” lines through the forest you can prevent the fire from spreading through hundreds of thousands of unswept acreage.
I personally receive and understand things a lot better when someone can demonstrate it themselves. The illustration was of value because it demonstrated how the ridiculous idea to sweep the entire forest could be broken down even further for a more interesting and possibly more effective route.
The illustration, shows how it does not get rid of the claim. The claim that was made was not a bad one, however the the image uses what’s good to make a credible thesis.