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.
The testability of cancer being caused by cellular phone use is feasible provided the appropriate conditions, and time period. The current technology hypothesis does not offer much in the lines of testability. We are able to research and find any correlations between the increase in cellular phone use and results from advanced medical imaging technology. However, we are unable to go back in time, and confirm that it was in fact a lack of advanced technology.
Fruitfulness:
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is most fruitful, that is makes the most successful novel predictions.
One can assume that a person who uses their cellular phone twelve hours a day will develop brain or eye cancer after many years of repeated use. We can determine that the relationship between the increase in cellular phone use and brain cancer exists.
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.
The original claim is strong, but there has not been sufficient enough time to determine an accurate study against the link between brain cancer and cellular phone use. As we have time to work with in the future we are able to efficiently test this hypothesis.
Simplicity:
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the simplest one, that is the one that makes the fewest assumptions.
It would not be a far leap to conclude that extensive cellular phone use is directly related to cancer. Given a cell phone's radioactive properties, it would be safe to say that any cases of brain cancer may be related to the patient's cell phone habits.
Conservatism:
Other things being equal, the best hypothesis is the one that is the most conservative, that is the one that fits best with established beliefs.
Exposure to radioactive material has been known to impair organs and tissues. So we can safely conclude that our hypothesis may be on the right track. Cellular phone use being linked to brain cancer is strongly supported by the radioactivity of the cell phones.
Criteria of Adequacy for Alternative Hypothesis #1:
In highly populated cities and industrial areas, radiation is stronger because of the environment, therefore, increases in cancer come from where one lives and the emissions there.
Testability:
This particular alternative hypothesis is highly testable, but would involve a cohort type of study. A scientific study can be conducted comparing the radiation emitted in the highly populated and industrial areas to that of rural and less industrial areas. Through this study it can be predicted whether living in a specific area causes cancer or not. This test can also predict something beyond the background theory. By setting up an experimental group and a control group we can predict if the area one lives is responsible for cancer and not cellular phone use. The experimental group could be cellular phone users who lives in urbanized or industrial areas. The control group would be cellular phone users who live in rural areas. These groups will have the same cellular phones and will have the same cellular phone habits. Both groups will be monitored for cancer development for a specific period of time.
Although this may seem feasible, other issues may surface. How do we control genetics or people who are preconditioned to the illness? How about other factors such as lifestyle and living conditions? These are a few questions that make this hypothesis difficult to prove.
Fruitfulness:
This hypothesis contains a good amount of fruitfulness. It proposes a new and insightful idea that cancer-causing radiation is produced by other sources such as the environment and domestic and industrial energy sources rather than just cell phones. This opens up broader lines of research which in the future, given the right resources for testing, could allow us to better grasp the primary contributors to the widespread problem of cancer.
This hypothesis contains a good amount of fruitfulness. It proposes a new and insightful idea that cancer-causing radiation is produced by other sources such as the environment and domestic and industrial energy sources rather than just cell phones. This opens up broader lines of research which in the future, given the right resources for testing, could allow us to better grasp the primary contributors to the widespread problem of cancer.
Scope:
The scope of this hypothesis is pretty strong. It explains the phenomena of cancer using logical and understandable ideas. It safely predicts how radiation may affect a population, and is diverse enough to not be considered an uneducated hypothesis.
Simplicity:
This hypothesis makes many assumptions, such as how cities have more radiation than the countryside. Although this is the case, it still holds a lot of truth based on the number of cell phones in the cities and industrial areas emitting radiation compared to the countryside. It would not be considered a simplistic claim as there are too many variables that would have to be tested and assumptions made, such as who gets cancer because it is genetic or brought on by another outside source.
Conservatism:
In this day, it is probable that most American adults have heard the claim that the radiation of some energies are hazardous to their health and could possibly be linked to cancer. This idea is not generally new nor radical and has traits of conservatism.
Criteria of Adequacy for Alternative Hypothesis #2:
New cases and add-ons for cellphones have been manufactured and distributed, therefore, there should be reduced cancer rates in those who utilize the products.
Testability:
It is relatively simple to test the veracity of this alternative hypothesis. Through the use of comparative study wherein cellphones with add-ons and new cases are determined whether radiation emission are lessened compared to that of cellphones without said features. Although this will definitely make prediction on whether this add-ons reduces radiation it does not address the initial concern on whether cellphones really do cause cancer.
Fruitfulness:
This hypothesis' fruitfulness is fairly simple to determine, if a user were to use an add-on such as a blue-tooth piece or a protective case on their phone, the incidence of cancer diagnosis would decrease as it would for anyone that utilized these tools. It could loosely be related to our original claim that cell-phones cause cancer, but this claim alone can't prove or disprove the original claim.
This hypothesis' fruitfulness is fairly simple to determine, if a user were to use an add-on such as a blue-tooth piece or a protective case on their phone, the incidence of cancer diagnosis would decrease as it would for anyone that utilized these tools. It could loosely be related to our original claim that cell-phones cause cancer, but this claim alone can't prove or disprove the original claim.
Scope:
This hypothesis would only explain why cell phone users that use these add-ons or choose texting as a method of communication are diagnosed less often with cancer than those that use the phone with it's original application (phone to the ear). It does not get us any closer to the claim that cell phones themselves increase the incidence of cancer.
This hypothesis would only explain why cell phone users that use these add-ons or choose texting as a method of communication are diagnosed less often with cancer than those that use the phone with it's original application (phone to the ear). It does not get us any closer to the claim that cell phones themselves increase the incidence of cancer.
Simplicity:
In order for us to analyze this alternative to our hypothesis we have to assume that cell phones do in fact cause cancer. From the evidence that we've found, although there haven't been any definitive findings, experts agree that caution should be used when exposing oneself to cell-phone radiation. Given the implementation of hands-free laws and the influx in texting, it would be safe to say that the majority of users aren't using their phones the way they have in the past. Rather than having the phone directly next to the head, thus exposing the tissues to the radio frequency energy, the phone and it's antenna are now away from the body which in turn eliminates exposure. This is a simple explanation that would definitely explain the lack of available evidence to link cellular phone radiation and tumors in the head, neck, and brain.
Conservatism:
While the premise for this hypothesis is simple, one would have to come to the conclusion that the cases and add-ons for the device were of radiation deflecting quality, as in those worn in a medical setting while having x-rays performed. Otherwise, the radiation emitted from the cell phone would not be in harmful amounts. In terms of simplicity, this claim is based on conservative thought. The add-ons and improvements for cellphones can be easily identified, and are used/supported all throughout the country. Conducting a phone to phone comparison with or without the add-ons would determine if there is a notable difference in radiation emitted which would cause cancer.
