Predictivism and avoidance of ad hoc-ness: An empirical study

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Epistemology
• Scientific Methodology

Background:

• Predictivism posits that novel predictions enhance theory confirmation more than existing evidence.
• A key rationale for predictivism is its purported ability to prevent ad hoc hypotheses.
• Historical analyses suggest scientists may not consistently adhere to predictivism.

Purpose of the Study:

• To empirically investigate scientists' attitudes towards predictivism.
• To examine scientists' understanding and avoidance of ad hoc hypotheses.
• To provide empirical data to inform the philosophical debate on scientific confirmation.

Main Methods:

• An empirical study was conducted with 492 scientists.
• Participants' views on predictivism and ad hoc-ness were surveyed.
• Data analysis aimed to establish scientists' epistemic attitudes.

Main Results:

• Scientists generally favor theories with predictive success.
• There is a nuanced understanding of 'ad hoc-ness' among scientists.
• The study reveals potential discrepancies between theoretical predictivism and actual scientific practice.

Conclusions:

• The empirical findings provide a more robust basis for the predictivism debate.
• Scientists' attitudes suggest a complex relationship between prediction, confirmation, and ad hoc theorizing.
• Further research is needed to reconcile philosophical accounts of ad hoc-ness with scientists' reported practices.