describe an alternate method to generate hypothesis which is different to the scientific method

Humans, as curious creatures, had always wondered about nature and the world around them. One of many methods they tackled their wonderings is science which is “the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence” (). Implied by the previous definition, the scientific method could be trustworthy because it relies on evidence to apply knowledge systematically. Thus, we can use it when trying to understand nature, motion, or human behavior. The application of science to understand the latter is what defines the core of psychology. However, there are other ways that humans applied to understand the real world around them –including human behavior, such as hypothesizing and reasoning. To understand human behavior, phycologists apply the scientific method to test hypotheses, answer questions, and falsify claims. They conduct experiments to test new ideas and seek evidence to falsify them from the experiment. This method is empirical, which means that it relies on real evidence and experiments (). In psychology, those ideas tend to explain human behavior. In other words, they answer the question of why one did so. The scientific method, however, cannot prove any of those ideas to be right. It only can falsify them (). Thus, all the ideas are either supported to be theories by empirical evidence or proven to be wrong. Psychologists tested many ideas about the causes and origin of human behavior and supported many of them. However, science is not the only way to explain nature as well as human behavior. Besides, people tended to hypothesize about a claim and then use reason to conclude the initial hypotheses. To hypothesize, people might conduct mental experiments or observe certain phenomena. When compared to science, this method is similar in the first step. However, science seeks to falsify any claim, Hypothesizing and reasoning tend to conclude results or new statements using only logic. This methodology allows the thinker to either prove or disprove their conclusions by using logic. However, the proof depends on the claim that the original statement is correct, which in this logic cannot be proven to be right. In psycho-philosophy, an observed human behavior can introduce a new hypothesis. The psycho-thinker can derive conclusions from his or her hypothesis by logic, explaining other human behaviors. Those explanations cannot be proven wrong or right because they all depend on the validity of the original statement. We must mention that the difference between this way of explaining nature and the deductive way of scientific thinking is there is no way to falsify the source statement. In the end, there are many ways to explain nature including human behaviors. Those ways are all about setting some principles to follow when explaining. The scientific method uses empirical evidence to reach for its principles, while the reasoning uses only logic to reach for new statements about nature. Like other aspects of nature, human behavior could be tackled using different methodologies.