Talk:working hypothesis

The definition makes no sense.

A hypothesis is already “unverified yet tentatively chosen as a best guess to build upon or put effort into its verification”. If that has been achieved, it has become a theory.
At best, a working hypothesis could be defined as a temporary hypothesis, that is assumed inside the context of a discussion or the like, but not outside of it. But I don’t know if that’s how people use it. In fact, this usage with the false assumption that hypothesis isn’t unverified, is the only way I’ve ever seen it used, and so it seems to be an invalid term by itself.
— 2A0A:A546:A8E:1:C27C:C014:A0D8:FCC3 17:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

On further investigation, my assumption seems to be the correct one for German, as the Duden seems to support my view: https://www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Arbeitshypothese
Arbeitshypothese links here. So either this must be the same for English, or that link is wrong and should be altered.
— 2A0A:A546:A8E:1:C27C:C014:A0D8:FCC3 17:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

You were correct, for the reason that you mentioned. I came here today because I had the same reaction to the existing def that you had had. All hypotheses are “unverified yet tentatively chosen as a best guess to build upon or put effort into its verification”. A working one is recognized as weakly held but driving or underpinning a team's work at a given time. I improved the def. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)