To formally define a hypothesis, the claimant should be obliged to define cognitive processing and willpower in terms of what you call "human phenomena". Then

To formally define a hypothesis, the claimant should be obliged to define cognitive processing and willpower in terms of what you call "human phenomena". Then we can design experiments to challenge the hypotheses, as in any other science. If you want to test "cognitive processing reduces willpower" vs "hard work merits reward", you would presumably define these four terms differently (or preferably rewrite them to be less ambiguous) and then you could design experiments which test each statement. I am not an expert in experimental psychology but the main wikipedia page even makes direct reference to this idea as operational definitions: "Operational definitions are definitions of theoretical constructs that are stated in terms of concrete, observable procedures". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Four_Canons_of_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology#The_Fo...