In this context, the third explanatory hypothesis gains more strength, taking the social and economic conditions of the territory as the independent variable.
My tentative suggestion is that the inherently less direct way that these competing explanatory hypotheses account for the features of our immediate experience may yield a reason for preferring the more direct, and thus in a sense simpler, representative realist explanatory hypothesis, for regarding it as more likely to be true.
However, it is still an open question whether this distinction can be drawn, or whether there is a more gradual transition from selecting an explanatory hypothesis from a familiar domain (selective abduction) to selecting a hypothesis that is slightly modified from the familiar set and to identifying a more drastically modified or altered assumption.
We raise the explanatory hypothesis that participants who perceive more expressions of disapproval in other people than are actually present avoid greater interpersonal contact to avoid criticism, which would generate the feeling of loneliness captured by T. This relationship was not found in the distortion of disgust; however, as mentioned, this score needs to be reviewed in other studies.
Beginning with the assumption that human predation caused the extinctions, we offer and test the first such explanatory hypothesis, which is predicated on considering more realistic functional response forms (i.e., those that allow for predator interference or prey sharing).
When it is endorsed, the hypothesis is regarded as more plausible, more probable, and more explanatory than relevant alternatives.
We achieved greater explained variance (and thus more explanatory power) at the care unit vs. the nursing home level (Table 4), and the hypothesis that variance was not zero was consistently supported at the care unit over the nursing home level, with the context concepts included in the ACT.
They were more explanatory than critical.
But an explanatory hypothesis is about how one thing leads to another and God is not one thing, nor is the universe another.
This would yield more explanatory light than rhetorical heat.
