Scholarlink

<p>Mangalam and Stergiou (Exp Brain Res 244:44, 2026) argue that the equilibrium point hypothesis, and its development into the referent control theory (RCT), lack mechanistic adequacy and should be replaced. This commentary raises an epistemological concern: critique alone does not justify rational theory displacement. In philosophy of science, theories are typically “succeeded” only after they repeatedly fail severe, discriminative tests and when a competing theoretical framework demonstrates superior explanatory and predictive performance across the same target domain. Given that RCT remains a productive, testable research program with growing neurophysiological and translational support, it should be treated as a living theoretical framework whose explanatory logic and predictions should not be declared “succeeded” on the basis of critique alone.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comments on “The equilibrium point hypothesis revisited: why threshold control does not explain human movement” (Mangalam and Stergiou, Exp Brain Res., 2026)

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月16日

查看全文
  • Daniele Piscitelli

摘要

Mangalam and Stergiou (Exp Brain Res 244:44, 2026) argue that the equilibrium point hypothesis, and its development into the referent control theory (RCT), lack mechanistic adequacy and should be replaced. This commentary raises an epistemological concern: critique alone does not justify rational theory displacement. In philosophy of science, theories are typically “succeeded” only after they repeatedly fail severe, discriminative tests and when a competing theoretical framework demonstrates superior explanatory and predictive performance across the same target domain. Given that RCT remains a productive, testable research program with growing neurophysiological and translational support, it should be treated as a living theoretical framework whose explanatory logic and predictions should not be declared “succeeded” on the basis of critique alone.