Social evolution theory provides a wide array of successful evolutionary explanations for cooperative traits. However and surprisingly, a number of cases of unexplained cooperative behaviour remain. Shouldn’t they cast doubt on the relevance of the theory, or even disconfirm it? This depends on whether the theory is akin to a research programme such as adaptationism, or closer to a theory – a set of compatible, (dis)confirmable hypotheses. In order to find out, we focus on the two main tenets of social evolution theory, namely reciprocity explanations and kin selection. Reciprocity-based explanations are extremely hard to (dis)confirm. This is due, first to the multiple realisability of explanatory processes, factors and strategies, despite apparent reasons to the contrary; second, to the high quantity, and limited availability of data needed to eliminate or back up such explanations. One of our target cases vividly illustrates these limitations. Moreover, kin selection, while relatively easy to disconfirm in particular cases, seems to enjoy a more limited explanatory scope than previously thought. Overall, social evolution theory turns out to be neither a research programme nor a theory, but a heterogeneous scientific entity, composed of parts that are amenable to (dis)confirmation and others barely so.

社会进化理论为合作性特征提供了一系列成功的进化解释。然而，令人惊讶的是，许多无法解释的合作行为的案例仍然存在。难道他们不应该怀疑这个理论的相关性，甚至否定它吗？这取决于该理论是类似于适应主义之类的研究计划，还是更接近于一种理论——一组兼容的、（不）可证实的假设。为了找出答案，我们将重点放在社会进化理论的两个主要原则上，即互惠解释和亲属选择。基于互惠的解释极难（否定）确认。这首先是由于解释过程、因素和策略的多重可实现性，尽管有明显的相反原因；第二，数量多，消除或支持此类解释所需的数据有限。我们的一个目标案例生动地说明了这些局限性。此外，亲属选择虽然在特定情况下相对容易否定，但似乎比以前认为的解释范围更有限。总的来说，社会进化理论既不是研究计划也不是理论，而是一个异质的科学实体，由易于（否定）确认的部分组成，而其他部分则几乎没有。