Spescha, Andrin
(2026)
Empirical Precision and Theoretical Depth Across the Sciences.
[Preprint]
Abstract
The sciences differ in the precision of their empirical tests. A central determinant of this precision are the applied auxiliary hypotheses, which can encompass everything from theories to apparatus to data analysis. If they are subject to large variation within and between studies, the obtained results will vary, too. This paper investigates how the ways to handle auxiliary hypotheses differ across the sciences. This covers, for example, the possibility to separate and test auxiliary hypotheses, to reveal them through intervention, or to construct the experimental setup to exclude false ones. The paper focuses on a comparison of physical work in the laboratory in the natural sciences to data work with computers in the social sciences. The interaction with physical experimental setups allows natural scientists to better test, manipulate, and neutralize auxiliary hypotheses. In contrast, the collecting, processing, and analysis of data in the social sciences faces severe difficulties in choosing the right auxiliary hypotheses. Too many of them seem equally true. Social scientists thus struggle with numerous researcher degrees of freedom in their studies. Consequently, the natural sciences can better narrow down false auxiliary hypotheses than the social sciences, which allows them to achieve more precise empirical results and in turn reach deeper levels of theoretical development.
Monthly Views for the past 3 years
Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years
Plum Analytics
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
![[img]](https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/text.png)
![[feed]](http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/style/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}