Separating Hypothesis from Verification: A Methodological Reform for Epistemic Justice and Scientific Integrity

Contemporary science suffers from five interconnected pathologies: authority gradient bias that shields prestigious hypotheses from falsification; conflation of hypothesis generation and empirical verification within the same institutions; systematic neglect of environmental diversity in knowledge claims; chronic undervaluation of replication as scholarly contribution; and the resulting reproducibility crisis and persistent misconduct. This article argues that these pathologies share a common structural root: the failure to institutionally separate theoretical work from experimental verification. Drawing on Ndlovu-Gatsheni's concept of the "cognitive empire" and extending it to scientific methodology, I propose "Open Experiment Design" as a decolonial reform—a model wherein theorists openly publish hypotheses with validity arguments and experimental protocols, while researchers across diverse environments conduct independent verifications as original contributions. Unlike existing open science initiatives such as pre-registration and registered reports, which constrain researchers without separating hypothesis from verification, this model requires no funding, no permission, and no institutional affiliation. The proposal originates not in philosophy of science but in fifteen years of software engineering practice, where development-testing separation is operational necessity. Crucially, because this critique challenges the interests of those embedded in current structures—funding agencies, elite institutions, journal editors—it could not have emerged from within the system. As an independent researcher with no academic career to protect and economic self-sufficiency outside academia, I offer this framework from the only position that permits such articulation. The methodology itself is subject to distributed verification, a claim I have tested through the experience of publishing this very article: as far as I could verify, no other pathway was technically viable. This is not merely epistemic justice; it is better science.