Abstract
Auxiliary hypotheses (AHs) are indispensable in hypothesis-testing, because without them specification of testable
predictions and consequently falsification is impossible. However, as AHs enter the test along with the main hypothesis, non-corroborative findings are ambiguous. Due to this ambiguity, AHs may also be employed to deflect falsification by providing “alternative explanations” of findings. This is not fatal to the extent that AHs are independently
validated and safely relegated to background knowledge. But this is not always possible, especially in the so-called
“softer” sciences where often theories are loosely organized, measurements are noisy, and constructs are vague. The
Systematic Replications Framework (SRF) provides a methodological solution by disentangling the implications of
the findings for the main hypothesis and the AHs through pre-planned series of systematically interlinked close and
conceptual replications. SRF facilitates testing alternative explanations associated with different AHs and thereby
increases test severity across a battery of tests. In this way, SRF assesses whether the corroboration of a hypothesis is
conditional on particular AHs, and thus allows for a more objective evaluation of its empirical support and whether
post hoc modifications to the theory are progressive or degenerative in the Lakatosian sense. Finally, SRF has several
advantages over randomization-based systematic replication proposals, which generally assume a problematic neooperationalist approach that prescribes exploration-oriented strategies in confirmatory contexts.
Keywords: Auxiliary Hypotheses, Duhem-Quine Thesis, Empirical Underdetermination, Falsificationism, Adversarial
Collaboration
predictions and consequently falsification is impossible. However, as AHs enter the test along with the main hypothesis, non-corroborative findings are ambiguous. Due to this ambiguity, AHs may also be employed to deflect falsification by providing “alternative explanations” of findings. This is not fatal to the extent that AHs are independently
validated and safely relegated to background knowledge. But this is not always possible, especially in the so-called
“softer” sciences where often theories are loosely organized, measurements are noisy, and constructs are vague. The
Systematic Replications Framework (SRF) provides a methodological solution by disentangling the implications of
the findings for the main hypothesis and the AHs through pre-planned series of systematically interlinked close and
conceptual replications. SRF facilitates testing alternative explanations associated with different AHs and thereby
increases test severity across a battery of tests. In this way, SRF assesses whether the corroboration of a hypothesis is
conditional on particular AHs, and thus allows for a more objective evaluation of its empirical support and whether
post hoc modifications to the theory are progressive or degenerative in the Lakatosian sense. Finally, SRF has several
advantages over randomization-based systematic replication proposals, which generally assume a problematic neooperationalist approach that prescribes exploration-oriented strategies in confirmatory contexts.
Keywords: Auxiliary Hypotheses, Duhem-Quine Thesis, Empirical Underdetermination, Falsificationism, Adversarial
Collaboration
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Meta-Psychology |
| Volume | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2023 |
| Externally published | Yes |