Metahypotheses

Metahypotheses are higher-order propositions about the nature, status, or governing assumptions of a set of hypotheses rather than about a specific empirical claim. They articulate methodological commitments, criteria for evaluation, or conditions under which particular hypotheses should be considered plausible or testable. In this way, metahypotheses function as meta-level guides that shape how research questions are formulated, how data are interpreted, and how results are judged.

A metahypothesis can specify what counts as adequate evidence, which sources of uncertainty are acceptable, or what kinds of generalization are warranted. It may address assumptions about the causal structure of a domain, the role of confounding factors, the robustness of effects across contexts, or the reliability of measurement. By making these higher-level commitments explicit, metahypotheses help researchers compare competing hypotheses and theory candidates on the basis of methodological coherence as well as predictive success.

Metahypotheses are typically tested indirectly, through the performance and falsifiability of the hypotheses and theories they govern. If a metahypothesis consistently predicts which conditions yield reliable results and which do not, it gains support; if it fails to account for key failures or misleads inference, it can be revised or abandoned. Critics note that metahypotheses can become vehicles for methodological bias or shield theory from refutation if not properly scrutinized.

In philosophy of science and research methodology, metahypotheses are related to metatheory and methodological assumptions, providing a framework that shapes the scientific program rather than a single empirical claim.