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.
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 guarantees 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).
The risk lies in constructing 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—initially proposed as a hypothesis, yet often 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.
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.
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.
I’m aware that grounding scientific research in plausibility may sound like heresy—but I stand by my position. I believe that plausibility—especially with regard to the assumptions that underpin models for describing and explaining natural phenomena and their interpretations—is a far superior criterion to simplicity, elegance, and naturalness, which are vastly overrated and often misleading.
I’m aware that grounding scientific research in plausibility may sound like heresy—but I stand by my position. I believe that plausibility—especially regarding the assumptions that underpin models for describing and explaining natural phenomena and their interpretations—is a far superior criterion to simplicity, elegance, and naturalness, which are vastly overrated and often misleading.
Plausibility, too, is a subjective criterion (what seems plausible to me may not be so for others). But unlike simplicity, elegance, and naturalness, plausibility is supported by a precious gift that the evolution of the cognitive system has bestowed upon humanity: what is commonly referred to as "common sense". A complex system for analyzing aspects of Reality—engaging numerous cognitive and even bodily functions—that helps us discriminate and interpret Reality by constructing "probable models" under conditions of uncertainty and limited information.
Plausibility, too, is a subjective criterion (what seems plausible to me may not be so for others). But unlike simplicity, elegance, and naturalness, plausibility is supported by a precious gift that the evolution of the cognitive system has bestowed upon humanity—what is commonly referred to as "common sense". A complex system for analyzing aspects of Reality—engaging numerous cognitive and even bodily functions—that helps us discriminate and interpret Reality by constructing "probable models" under conditions of uncertainty and limited information.
It’s true that in modern physics—especially in the strange world of quantum phenomena—reason and common sense often seem to fail miserably in interpreting observations. But it’s equally true that the interpretations proposed by science itself often struggle to account for the bizarre nature of the phenomena observed. So, if we’re lost either way... better to rely on plausibility. It helps us avoid getting lost in dark thickets—or ending up on dead-end tracks—clutching fanciful interpretations that, rather than bringing us closer to a deeper understanding of Reality, keep us trapped in an eternal "non-sense".
It’s true that in modern physics—especially in the strange world of quantum phenomena—reason and common sense often seem to fail miserably in interpreting observations. But it’s equally true that the interpretations proposed by science itself often struggle to account for the bizarre nature of the phenomena observed. So, if we’re lost either way... better to rely on plausibility. It helps us avoid getting lost in dark thickets—or ending up on dead-end tracks—clutching fanciful interpretations that, rather than bringing us closer to a deeper understanding of Reality, keep us trapped in an eternal "non-sense".
I’m not suggesting that we replace the scientific method with common sense—far from it. I hope what I’m trying to convey is clear. I simply mean that the scientific method, when applied to implausible premises, can lead to theories and models that give us the false impression of holding the “truth.”
I’m not suggesting that we replace the scientific method with common sense—far from it. I hope what I’m trying to convey is clear. I simply mean that the scientific method, when applied to implausible premises, can lead to theories and models that give us the false impression of holding the “truth.”
And when it comes to deep and identity-defining questions—such as the origin and evolution of the Universe, the nature of Reality, and so on—these implausible models become the foundation of our worldview. They shape the vision of Reality not only for scientists but also for ordinary people. They influence culture, and through it, civilization, individual and collective beliefs, the development of society, and so forth.
And when it comes to deep and identity-defining questions—such as the origin and evolution of the Universe, the nature of Reality, and so on—these implausible models become the foundation of our worldview. They shape the vision of Reality not only for scientists but also for ordinary people. They influence culture—and through it, civilization, individual and collective beliefs, the development of society, and so forth.
It’s a delicate matter!
It’s a delicate matter!
Links to the tables of contents of TFNR Paper
