TFNR - Truth, consistency and plausibility
Truth, Consistency, and Plausibility must be understood as interdependent criteria in the construction of knowledge. Absolute truth is unreachable; it holds a relative and functional value within evolving systems of understanding. Consistency ensures internal coherence, but it is not sufficient on its own. Without plausible assumptions, even the most coherent models may fail to describe or explain Reality.
The risk lies in building internally consistent theories upon ideological, illogical, or implausible premises. These may appear “true” but remain disconnected from observable Reality. A paradigmatic example is the Big Bang model: proposed as a hypothesis, yet treated as foundational truth. Its premise—a pseudo-scientific creation myth—is illogical (what provides the initial energy?), and implausible (based on phenomena such as cosmic expansion, the cosmic microwave background—CMB—, and the relative abundance of primordial chemical elements, which still require definitive demonstration and may be open to alternative interpretations).
When such models dominate, they may distort our vision of Reality, inhibit cosmological research, and influence collective understanding—from scientists to ordinary individuals. A robust epistemology must begin with plausibility, not dogma.
Plausibility is not a passive criterion—it is an active filter that demands assumptions be empirically grounded, logically sound, and open to revision. It connects theory to observation, and guards against the seduction of elegant but unfounded models. Without plausibility, knowledge risks becoming a closed system: internally consistent, yet epistemologically sterile and disconnected from the world it seeks to explain.
