- \n
- Failure to test and refute prominent hypotheses reduces confidence in the reliability of scientific results and hinders scientific progress.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Hypothesis.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nAcross many scientific fields there is a well-documented reproducibility crisis<\/a> that is damaging trust in the reliability of research data. In a recent article <\/a>published in eLife<\/a><\/em>, Dr Sarah Rajtmajer<\/a> and co-authors discuss how failure to falsify (refute) strong hypotheses through direct testing has contributed to the problem.<\/p>\n
As a case study, the authors highlight two prominent and seemingly contradictory hypotheses in the field of connectomics:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Hyperconnectivity hypothesis<\/strong>: brain injury results in an enhanced functional network response.<\/li>\n
- Disconnection hypothesis<\/strong>: brain injury results in reduced functional connectivity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Instead of deliberate attempts to challenge either of these positions, the research area has seen the publication of a large number of small studies examining under-specified hypotheses, which has done little to bring clarity to the existing body of literature. The authors argue that the \u2018science-by-volume\u2019 culture, coupled with the overuse of inappropriate statistical tests and lack of falsification attempts, fosters a research environment in which the quantity of scientific findings continues to grow, but the depth of understanding remains stagnant.<\/p>\n
- Disconnection hypothesis<\/strong>: brain injury results in reduced functional connectivity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Hyperconnectivity hypothesis<\/strong>: brain injury results in an enhanced functional network response.<\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/Byline_Iain-Haslam.png?resize=618%2C75&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n