Why theory matters: New arguments for an old conclusion

Yet, in recent years, the motivation for theory has become uncertain and unclear, particularly in fields that rely heavily on observation or experimentation (e.g., psychology) or that are becoming increasingly data-driven (e.g., neuroscience).

Traditional arguments for theory may be rationally convincing but fail to change day-to-day research practices in these fields. A new argument for theory is proposed, starting from an analysis of the so-called ‘replication crisis’ and a model of the interplay between theory development and theory testing in psychology. For empirically-minded researchers in these fields, the value of theory development may lie in restricting the space of possible hypotheses and models to those that have greater a priori plausibility, thus reducing the risks (and costs) of pursuing false or even impossible empirical claims.