To what extent would said research be more difficult to do without a working hypothesis?
You would have to poke around, with no idea what you’re looking for.
By what sort of process does the existence of a working hypothesis enable research?
The working hypothesis says you should try poking around over there, which narrows things down a little bit, but not very much.
To the extent that a working hypothesis is used in public communication with non-scientists about a given topic, why is it so?
People like having an explanation. Even if it tells you very little indeed.
Something more specific—I think head trauma is related to depression. If this involves a ‘chemical imbalance’ then maybe that means something was damaged...relating to happiness? (There’s also some theories about top down versus bottom up processing which didn’t really clear things up for me, but might offer a possible explanation.)
You would have to poke around, with no idea what you’re looking for.
The working hypothesis says you should try poking around over there, which narrows things down a little bit, but not very much.
People like having an explanation. Even if it tells you very little indeed.
Something more specific—I think head trauma is related to depression. If this involves a ‘chemical imbalance’ then maybe that means something was damaged...relating to happiness? (There’s also some theories about top down versus bottom up processing which didn’t really clear things up for me, but might offer a possible explanation.)