Making our “meta-hypotheses” clear: heterogeneity and the role of direct replications in science

Abstract This paper argues that some of the discussion around meta-scientific issues can be viewed as an argument over different “meta-hypotheses” – assumptions made about how hypotheses in a scientific literature relate to each other. I argue that, currently, such meta-hypotheses are typically left unstated except methodological papers and consequence this practice is it hard determine what learned from direct replication study. favor procedure dubbed “limited homogeneity assumption” assuming very little heterogeneity effect sizes when initiated but switching assumption once initial finding has been successfully replicated Until happened, we do not allow proceed mature stage. will elevate status studies science. Following procedure, well-designed study means falsifying overall claim early phase thus sets up hurdle against canonization false facts behavioral sciences.