IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE? Has anyone done any work on

IS COST A MISSING VARIABLE FROM CRITICAL PREFERENCE?

Has anyone done any work on the costs of critical preferences to see if there is an empirical correlation between the costs to pursue a particular choice of one preference over another? I would really like to know, empirically, why we seem to be fairly good at attacking theories. Or whether this is a bias that I can’t seem to see around.

I suspect that the available field of choices to eliminate at any given time is quite small. And I wonder if we can include or eliminate costs from the logic since we ignore it presently, and all fields other than science do not eliminate it.

I suspect that there is a causal property of discovery that we do not incorporate in CR/CP. I do not think it has anything to do with induction. But I think there is something that we are missing. I would like to eliminate costs as a variable, since it is the most obvious, because it is included in all other fields of inquiry. It would seem logical that iterating on lowest costs of discovery would produce increasingly parsimonious new theories, while higher cost discoveries would increase the content that must be subject to falsification. This is true in almost every field. I suspect that it is also true in science. And I suspect that while the possibility that we cannot choose between theories is logically true, that empirically it is only true about A vs B, but not true about the sequence of tests starting with A vs starting with B.