IDO MOVEMENT FOR CULTURE

The presented text consists of two basic parts. The first one includes reminiscences and the connected methodological resentments. The second one presents a wide panorama of standpoints concerning functions and kinds of hypotheses, their role and significance in contemporary research programmes of formal, empirical (connected with natural sciences and biology) and humane qualities. Sketchy and encyclopaedic interpretations, presented in the context of commentaries of the author of the presented paper, dominate there.
The aim of the first part is to draw attention to some methodological mistakes which often appear and which have become common in some academic milieus to such a degree that some intervention and postulating correction referring to Polish and Western methodological literature is advisable. Those shortcomings are connected, among others, with the structure of academic work, with formulation and application of a hypothesis, with relations taking place between the general methodology and specialized methodologies, with kinds and types of research work, with reliability of information on sources of creative inspiration, as well as with the category of verification in its relation to confirmation, corroboration, testing, checking as well as to falsification and terms similar in meaning.
The abovementioned resentment results, first of all, from the fact that the authors who are discussed in the first part usually insist on erroneous solutions, negating a priori, without becoming acquainted with the literature on the subject, attempts at explaining or initiating a methodological argument referring to sources and studies.
That resentment is significant, among others, in the causal sense – that is, because of the fact that, firstly, it justifies and substantiates the need of a statement presenting controversial questions in a content-related and formal way. Secondly, because thanks to such (that is, cognitive-emotional) introduction, the whole argument – not only in the first, but also in the second part – is much more interesting. It is saturated with authenticity. Many readers know the mentioned figures and their attitude – sometimes too insouciant (sometimes not very reliable) – to important issues from the field of research methods. It is also interesting why the pointed out persons make mistakes. Hence, it is also advisable to look at a wider methodological context of justification (included in the much longer second part) dedicated to maybe the most thorough characteristics of the hypothesis in the literature on the subject which is available to the author. Without presentation of the controversial issues in the first part, the second part, more important from the methodological viewpoint, might be omitted by a considerable part of readers.
In that part attention is paid mainly to issues concerning working, initial, zero, primary, introductory, steering, gradual, auxiliary, ad hoc, bridge, futile and true, dangerous and safe, quite natural and neutral, individual and general, complete and incomplete, deep, strong, probabilistic and improbabilistic (that is, deterministic), related, falsifying, basic, psychological, metaphysical and materialist hypotheses, as well as those concluding ones – that is, those constituting the final effect of definite (concluded here and now) researches; hence, those which has undergone verification, confirmation, corroboration or modification as those which predict and explain a given research problem in the best possible way.