Toward Well-Posed Problems in the Social Sciences: Hadamard's Criteria as Epistemic Guardrails
Abstract
We develop an interdisciplinary framework for evaluating the epistemic robustness of social-scientific inquiry through Hadamard's criteria for well-posed problems: existence, uniqueness, and stability. Reinterpreting these criteria not as demands for deterministic certainty but as methodological guardrails, we show how they diagnose recurrent failures of identification and inference across quantitative and qualitative paradigms. In quantitative research (e.g., econometric modeling), instability manifests when substantive conclusions depend sensitively on model specifications or data filtering. In interpretivist qualitative research, non-uniqueness and non-falsifiability arise when theoretical frameworks are elastic enough to accommodate contradictory observations without pre-specified rejection criteria. We frame these failures as inverse problems where the mapping from empirical data to substantive claims fails to satisfy existence, uniqueness, or stability. Finally, we propose cross-paradigmatic safeguards: ex-ante falsification criteria, empirical boundary conditions, multiverse sensitivity auditing, and cross-observer validation, to ensure social-scientific claims remain appropriately constrained, falsifiable, and robust to perturbations in evidence and interpretation.
Related
- Stability of ideal Nash equilibrium points in generalized multi-criteria games, interval-valued games, and existence in single-leader--multi-follower problems
- Noether's Second Theorem and the Pareto Front Structure in Multi-Criteria Variational Problems
- Efficient Clustering with Quality Guardrails for LLM-based Recommender Systems at Industry Scale
- A Hadamard Cube of Order 22
- A Three-Way Testing Framework for Quantifying Epistemic Calibration Uncertainty in SBI
BibTeX
@misc{li2026toward,
title = {{Toward Well-Posed Problems in the Social Sciences: Hadamard's Criteria as Epistemic Guardrails}},
author = {Don Li},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.22321},
eprint = {2609.22321},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22321},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Toward Well-Posed Problems in the Social Sciences: Hadamard's Criteria as Epistemic Guardrails
AU - Don Li
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/15
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.22321
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22321
AB - We develop an interdisciplinary framework for evaluating the epistemic robustness of social-scientific inquiry through Hadamard's criteria for well-posed problems: existence, uniqueness, and stability. Reinterpreting these criteria not as demands for deterministic certainty but as methodological guardrails, we show how they diagnose recurrent failures of identification and inference across quantitative and qualitative paradigms. In quantitative research (e.g., econometric modeling), instability manifests when substantive conclusions depend sensitively on model specifications or data filtering. In interpretivist qualitative research, non-uniqueness and non-falsifiability arise when theoretical frameworks are elastic enough to accommodate contradictory observations without pre-specified rejection criteria. We frame these failures as inverse problems where the mapping from empirical data to substantive claims fails to satisfy existence, uniqueness, or stability. Finally, we propose cross-paradigmatic safeguards: ex-ante falsification criteria, empirical boundary conditions, multiverse sensitivity auditing, and cross-observer validation, to ensure social-scientific claims remain appropriately constrained, falsifiable, and robust to perturbations in evidence and interpretation.
ER -