In the field of science, it is widely accepted that all hypotheses and theories can, and should, be tested. Here, we treat the authorship of the works attributed to William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon as a hypothesis (rather than received truth) and review the current methods available for testing this hypothesis. Justification for this investigation arises from the recent identification of several of Shakespeare’s coauthors. To illustrate potential approaches, we compare the widely accepted Stratfordian hypothesis with other competing hypotheses (authorship candidates), mainly referring to the case for Henry Neville (1562-1615). First, we identify important components of the scientific method as applied to the Shakespeare authorship issue: evaluation of evidence, formulation of a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and rejecting or revising the hypothesis. Referring to historical examples, we show how the scientific method has produced precise, dependable advances, even though the way in which it proceeds is often messy. Crucial for science’s progress is confirmation of experimental results, and discussion (with peer review) by the community of scientists before any hypothesis gains general acceptance. Second, using the example of Neville as a candidate, we provide specific examples of application of these principles to factors such as a candidate’s social networks, access to privileged knowledge, and textual analysis; we comment on the strengths and weakness of each approach, and how they might be applied in future studies. Throughout, we stress how doubt is an essential ingredient of progress not only in science but also in knowledge generally, including the Shakespeare authorship debate.
Peer Review #2 of "Size dimorphism and sexual segregation in pheasants: tests of three competing hypotheses (v0.1)"
