The Dominant Hypothesis as a Methodological Risk

One of the most serious methodological threats in textual research is not the lack of data, but an excess of data subordinated to a single, privileged explanation. This phenomenon is referred to as a dominant hypothesis: an interpretation that has acquired the status of a default point of reference not because of its current evidential strength, but due to tradition, institutional authority, doctrinal function, or long-term repetition in scholarly and popular discourse.

A dominant hypothesis functions as a cognitive frame that organizes the perception of data even before analysis begins. In practice, this means that new information is not evaluated independently but is immediately classified as “confirmatory,” “secondary,” or “problematic.” Contradictory data are often reinterpreted, harmonized, or marginalized instead of serving as critical signals. This process frequently occurs implicitly, without deliberate intent on the part of the researcher, which makes it particularly difficult to detect.

From the perspective of evidence-based methodology, the fundamental problem lies in the reversal of the justificatory relationship. A hypothesis that should emerge as the result of weighing premises begins instead to determine their selection, hierarchy, and mode of interpretation. As a result, a claim that requires justification is incorporated into the set of initial assumptions. This mechanism produces an appearance of interpretive stability that does not arise from the strength of the evidence, but from the closure of the field of alternatives.

One of the most serious methodological threats in textual research is not the lack of data, but an excess of data subordinated to a single, privileged explanation. 

Within the EBBS framework, a dominant hypothesis is not treated as a special case requiring protection, nor as a privileged point of reference to be “refuted.” It is one possible explanatory proposal and is subject to the same evaluative criteria as any other hypothesis. Its long-standing presence in interpretive tradition does not increase its evidential value; rather, it raises the threshold of critical vigilance. The more deeply a hypothesis is embedded culturally or theologically, the greater the risk that its status has been stabilized by extra-evidential factors.

A particularly strong indicator of hypothesis dominance is a situation in which alternative explanations are not genuinely considered, but are dismissed a priori as “unnecessary,” “dangerous,” or “inconsistent with the overall message.” From the EBBS perspective, such practices are not signs of interpretive maturity, but symptoms of a closed research process. An evidence-based method assumes that a hypothesis remains valid only as long as it is best supported by the available data.

From a praxeological standpoint, a dominant hypothesis reduces the cognitive efficiency of the entire process. It limits the ability to detect tensions, reduces sensitivity to atypical data, and promotes the reproduction of existing schemas rather than their testing. EBBS does not aim to replace one dominant interpretation with another, but to create conditions in which no hypothesis is exempt from the obligation of justification.

The goal, therefore, is not the selection of the “safest” interpretation, but the maintenance of an open, controlled inferential field in which interpretive decisions are explicit, proportionate to the data, and reversible in light of new evidence. In this sense, the critique of the dominant hypothesis is not a polemical gesture, but a condition for the integrity of textual research.

Matias Mango | pexels.com