Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Langue: | |
| Publié: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Accès en ligne: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18514393 |
| Tags: |
Ajouter un tag
Pas de tags, Soyez le premier à ajouter un tag!
|
Table des matières:
- <p>This paper establishes a diagnostic result: violations of admissibility reliably predict downstream scientific pathology. It proves that when inadmissible moves—such as deferred reference fixation, scope transport, surrogate substitution, or silent redescription—are introduced at any stage of inquiry, subsequent theoretical instability, explanatory inflation, or unresolvable disagreement is not accidental but structurally forced.</p> <p>The result is classificatory and eliminative. The paper does not propose predictive models, empirical heuristics, or corrective methodologies. Instead, it shows that admissibility violations function as early structural indicators of later failure: parameter proliferation, interpretive ambiguity, non-falsifiable extensions, or persistent explanatory gaps arise as necessary consequences of foundational illegitimacy rather than as contingent missteps.</p> <p>The analysis blocks a class of interpretations in which scientific breakdowns are attributed to insufficient data, immature theory, or sociological factors alone. It demonstrates that many such breakdowns are predictable in advance once admissibility violations are present, and that no amount of empirical refinement can compensate for them.</p> <p>This work is purely boundary-setting. It introduces no operational prediction tools, no governance mechanisms, and no enforcement logic. Its contribution is to clarify why admissibility is not merely normative but diagnostically powerful, delimiting a structural link between early epistemic violations and later scientific pathology.</p>