competing-hypothesis-construction

name	competing-hypothesis-construction
description	Strategy: Construct multiple competing hypotheses for the same phenomenon
version	1.0.0
category	hypothesis-formation
type	strategy
campaign	hypothesis-formulation
tactics	["competing-hypothesis-matrix"]
sops	["competing-hypothesis-generation","discriminating-prediction-design","hypothesis-comparison-matrix","falsifiability-check"]
dependencies	{"tactics":["competing-hypothesis-matrix"],"sops":["falsifiability-check"]}

Competing Hypothesis Construction

Construct multiple competing hypotheses for the same phenomenon: actively counter confirmation bias, maintain epistemic openness by building genuinely different explanations in parallel, and design decisive predictions that can distinguish them.

When to Use

• The researcher already has a "preferred hypothesis" and needs to actively challenge it
• The phenomenon has multiple plausible explanations, and premature convergence would lead in the wrong direction
• You need to show reviewers or funders that alternative explanations have been considered
• When designing experiments, you need to determine which variable best discriminates between competing explanations

Not applicable: the phenomenon has overwhelming evidence supporting a single explanation → directly use deductive-hypothesis-generation to refine that explanation.

Thinking Framework

Avoid confirmation bias by generating genuinely different explanations, then find discriminating predictions

The core logic of competing hypothesis construction:

1. Force diversity: competing hypotheses must be genuinely different at the mechanism level, not variants of the same mechanism
2. Symmetric treatment: each hypothesis is treated with equal seriousness; the preferred hypothesis is not allowed special treatment
3. Discriminating predictions: find decisive predictions that distinguish the hypotheses — what result supports H1 but contradicts H2, and vice versa
4. Matrix comparison: reveal structural differences between hypotheses through a systematic matrix

Quality criteria for competing hypotheses:

• Genuinely competing: two hypotheses give different causal explanations for the same phenomenon (not weaker/stronger versions of the same explanation)
• Mutual exclusivity: there exists at least one observable result that can support one while contradicting the other
• Comparability: both hypotheses have clear testable predictions

Budget Gate

Tier	Competing hypotheses	Discriminating predictions	Comparison matrix	Falsifiability
S	≥2 genuinely competing hypotheses	≥1 discriminating prediction	simplified version (2×2)	1 falsification scenario per hypothesis