On Science, Demarcation, And The Necessity Of Maximally Fit Epistemic Systems


Axiom 1:  The metrics by which an epistemic system is to be judged, are its explanatory power and its ability to make testable, repeatable predictions that reliably allow reality to be influenced in conformity with will.
try science

Definition 1: Let “knowledge” mean “justified true belief.”
Definition 2: Let “falsifiable” mean “makes testable predictions which can be proven wrong, thereby falsifying the claim via Modus Tollens”
Definition 3: Let “objective” mean “facts or models whose truth value is independent of the observer.”
Definition 4: Let “quantifiable” mean “able to be expressed as a numerical quantity and/or represented by an objective relationship between two or more entities and/or events.”
Definition 5: Let “theory” mean “the class of models which have maximal explanatory and predictive power, and which are falsifiable and objective.”
Definition 6: Let “the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent” mean “the formal logical fallacy under which affirming the consequent in a conditional is used to affirm the antecedent.”
Definition 7: Let “burden of proof” mean “the epistemic threshold which is required to reject the null hypothesis.”
Definition 8: Let “null hypothesis” mean “the default, provisional negation of any claim that is made.”
Definition 9: Let “the Problem of Induction” mean “the limit of inductive reasoning due to the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.”
Definition 10: Let “science” mean “the epistemic system whereby we gain justification for objective truth-claims.”

Premise 1: In order for a knowledge-claim about objective reality to become justified, it requires objective, empirical evidence. (A1, D3)
Premise 2: Without justification, knowledge-claims  about objective reality are necessarily fallacious. (P1)
Premise 3: Without testable, objective predictions, a conditional is unfalsifiable (D2)
Premise 4: A claim outside of the context of a conditional makes no objective, testable predictions, and is therefore a naked assertion that cannot be justified. (D1, P1, P3)
Premise 5:  To the degree that a model is unfalsifiable, it is impossible to provide cogent support for its veracity since a confidence interval sufficient to reject the null hypothesis is not possible. (D2, D7, D8, P1)
Premise 6: A model of objective reality must be quantifiable in order to be justifiable. (D4, P1)
Premise 7:   Support for a model that has carried its burden of proof can be cogent, but can only have indeterminate soundness. (D9)
Premise 8: A model which cannot achieve a high enough confidence interval to reject the null hypothesis, is a statement of belief, not knowledge. (D1, P1, P4, P5)
Premise 9:A model which does not make testable, repeatable objective predictions, cannot achieve a confidence interval high enough to reject the null hypothesis. (P5, P7)
Premise 10: A model that is objective must be quantifiable. (D3, D4)
Premise 11: A theory requires justification. (D5, P4, P5, P6)
Premise 12: Absent justification, a model cannot carry its burden of proof, and cannot claim the status of a theory. (D5, P2, P4, P5, P6, P8, P11)
Premise 13: A model which cannot claim the status of a theory is not maximally fit in terms of its ability to influence objective reality in conformity with will.  (D5, P12)
Premise 14: A model which cannot claim the status of a theory, is not scientific. (D10, P13)
Premise 15: An objective truth-claim about reality which is not scientific,  cannot be maximally fit in terms of the ability to influence objective reality in conformity with will. (P13, P14)
Premise 15: In order for a model to be maximally fit in terms of the ability to influence objective reality in conformity with will, it must be scientific. (P14, P15)
Premise 16: Objective truth-claims made in the absence of testable, repeatable, falsifiable, objective theories, are beliefs which are unjustified and  non-scientific,  and therefore their null hypotheses stand.  (P2, P4, P5, P8, P9, P12)
Premise 17: A model which cannot provide justification for rejecting the null hypothesis is a belief-claim not a knowledge-claim, and cannot be used to support any objective truth-claims.  (P2, P8, P9, P16)
Premise 18:  Unjustified belief-statements about objective reality will, necessarily, be replaced by their null hypotheses and are therefore necessarily summarily rejected unless and until they can carry their burden of proof. (P17)
Premise 19: Maximally fit maintenance and improvement of human health and welfare, requires models which are maximally fit in terms of their ability to influence objective reality in conformity with will. (A1)
Premise 20: Non-scientific knowledge-claims  about objective reality will, therefore, never be able to carry their burdens of proof, will therefore never be able to reject their null hypotheses, and will therefore always be of neutral or deleterious value when compared to the efficacy of scientific theories about objective reality. (P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18)
Premise 21: ∴ In order to ensure the maximally fit maintenance and improvement of human health and welfare, scientific theories are required. (P19, P20)






















Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s