| _version_ | 1866901096614592512 |
|---|---|
| author | Li, JW |
| author_facet | Li, JW |
| contents | <p><span lang="EN-US">Scientific models perform remarkably well within the interior of a system’s state space, where behaviour is smooth, proportional, and governed by stable object identities. Yet they repeatedly fail near boundaries, where systems approach structural limits and collapse, reorganise, or undergo discontinuities. This paper argues that these failures arise from a pervasive methodological blind spot: modern scientific explanation lacks a vocabulary for representing saturation, tension accumulation, and boundary-driven behaviour. Drawing on three illustrative domains—quantum measurement, macroeconomic crises, and political leadership instability—the paper shows that paradoxes and predictive breakdowns frequently occur when models extend low-tension assumptions into high-tension regimes where they no longer apply. Across these cases, systems behave coherently until internal tension rises past a threshold, after which behaviour follows a characteristic collapse geometry that existing models cannot capture because they omit variables measuring proximity to structural limits. I propose a structural epistemology in which object boundaries, reference configurations, and limit-dependent constraints become central to explanation. This framework does not replace domain-specific theories; rather, it clarifies the conditions under which they succeed and the regimes in which they fail. A science that models behaviour but not limits can describe stability but not collapse. Understanding breakdown phenomena therefore requires integrating structure—rather than statistical regularity—into the foundations of scientific explanation.</span></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_17934471 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | The Structural Blindness of Modern Science: Why Limits, Saturation, and Collapse Are Almost Never Modeled Li, JW <p><span lang="EN-US">Scientific models perform remarkably well within the interior of a system’s state space, where behaviour is smooth, proportional, and governed by stable object identities. Yet they repeatedly fail near boundaries, where systems approach structural limits and collapse, reorganise, or undergo discontinuities. This paper argues that these failures arise from a pervasive methodological blind spot: modern scientific explanation lacks a vocabulary for representing saturation, tension accumulation, and boundary-driven behaviour. Drawing on three illustrative domains—quantum measurement, macroeconomic crises, and political leadership instability—the paper shows that paradoxes and predictive breakdowns frequently occur when models extend low-tension assumptions into high-tension regimes where they no longer apply. Across these cases, systems behave coherently until internal tension rises past a threshold, after which behaviour follows a characteristic collapse geometry that existing models cannot capture because they omit variables measuring proximity to structural limits. I propose a structural epistemology in which object boundaries, reference configurations, and limit-dependent constraints become central to explanation. This framework does not replace domain-specific theories; rather, it clarifies the conditions under which they succeed and the regimes in which they fail. A science that models behaviour but not limits can describe stability but not collapse. Understanding breakdown phenomena therefore requires integrating structure—rather than statistical regularity—into the foundations of scientific explanation.</span></p> |
| title | The Structural Blindness of Modern Science: Why Limits, Saturation, and Collapse Are Almost Never Modeled |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17934471 |