David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science in Context 25 (2):247-262 (2012)
This paper investigates whether there is a discrepancy between the stated and actual aims in biomechanical research, particularly with respect to hypothesis testing. We present an analysis of one hundred papers recently published in The Journal of Experimental Biology and Journal of Biomechanics, and examine the prevalence of papers which (a) have hypothesis testing as a stated aim, (b) contain hypothesis testing claims that appear to be purely presentational (i.e. which seem not to have influenced the actual study), and (c) have exploration as a stated aim. We found that whereas no papers had exploration as a stated aim, 58% of papers had hypothesis testing as a stated aim. We had strong suspicions, at the bare minimum, that presentational hypotheses were present in 31% of the papers in this latter group.
|Keywords||Hypothesis Testing Biomechanics Prediction Accommodation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
E. C. Barnes (2005). Predictivism for Pluralists. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (3):421-450.
David Harker (2008). On the Predilections for Predictions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (3):429-453.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Alan Musgrave (1974). Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25 (1):1-23.
Citations of this work BETA
Jane Calvert & Joan H. Fujimura (2011). Calculating Life? Duelling Discourses in Interdisciplinary Systems Biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 42 (2):155-163.
Chris Haufe (2013). Why Do Funding Agencies Favor Hypothesis Testing? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (3):363-374.
Similar books and articles
Rob Hengeveld (2002). Methodology Going Astray in Population Biology. Acta Biotheoretica 50 (2):77-93.
Joseph L. Austerweil & Thomas L. Griffiths (2011). Seeking Confirmation Is Rational for Deterministic Hypotheses. Cognitive Science 35 (3):499-526.
Max Albert (1992). Die Falsifikation Statistischer Hypothesen. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 23 (1):1 - 32.
Henderikus J. Stam & Grant A. Pasay (1998). The Historical Case Against Null-Hypothesis Significance Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):219-220.
Bruno D. Zumbo (1998). A Viable Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):227-228.
Robert W. Frick (1998). Chow's Defense of Null-Hypothesis Testing: Too Traditional? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):199-199.
David Resnik (1996). Adaptationism: Hypothesis or Heuristic? [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (1):39-50.
Dr Francesco Mancini & Amelia Gangemi (2004). The Influence of Responsibility and Guilt on Naive Hypothesis-Testing. Thinking and Reasoning 10 (3):289 – 320.
David J. Pittenger (2001). Hypothesis Testing as a Moral Choice. Ethics and Behavior 11 (2):151 – 162.
Kirsten Walsh (2012). Did Newton Feign the Corpuscular Hypothesis? In James Maclaurin (ed.), Rationis Defensor.
G. William Moore, Grover M. Hutchins & Robert E. Miller (1986). A New Paradigm for Hypothesis Testing in Medicine, with Examination of the Neyman Pearson Condition. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (3).
David P. Barash (2005). Sex Differences: Empiricism, Hypothesis Testing, and Other Virtues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2):276-277.
Carol E. Cleland (2002). Methodological and Epistemic Differences Between Historical Science and Experimental Science. Philosophy of Science 69 (3):447-451.
Edward Erwin (1998). The Logic of Null Hypothesis Testing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):197-198.
Barbara A. Spellman (1999). Hypothesis Testing: Strategy Selection for Generalising Versus Limiting Hypotheses. Thinking and Reasoning 5 (1):67 – 92.
Added to index2011-12-23
Total downloads31 ( #65,217 of 1,410,123 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #46,237 of 1,410,123 )
How can I increase my downloads?