The 4 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum

An expanded model adding two crucial dimensions to the basic framework. Axis 1: Rationalism-Empiricism (reason vs. experience). Axis 2: Foundationalism-Coherentism (foundations vs. web). Axis 3: Internalism-Externalism (justification depends on factors inside the knower's mind vs. factors outside it). Axis 4: Individualism-Socialism (knowledge is individual achievement vs. knowledge is social product). These four axes create sixteen epistemological positions. Descartes is rationalist, foundationalist, internalist, individualist. Contemporary science is largely empiricist, coherentist, externalist (trusting methods over mental states), and social (science as community achievement). The 4 Axes reveal that debates about knowledge often talk past each other because they're fighting on different axes entirely.

The 4 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum "You say knowledge requires certainty. That's foundationalism. I say knowledge is what the scientific community agrees on. That's social coherentism. The 4 Axes show we're not even on the same axes—let alone the same positions. No wonder we can't agree. We're playing different games entirely."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 6 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum

A comprehensive model adding two further dimensions for deeper analysis. Axis 1: Rationalism-Empiricism (reason vs. experience). Axis 2: Foundationalism-Coherentism (foundations vs. web). Axis 3: Internalism-Externalism (inside mind vs. outside factors). Axis 4: Individualism-Socialism (personal vs. communal). Axis 5: A Priori-A Posteriori (knowledge independent of experience vs. dependent on it). Axis 6: Analytic-Synthetic (truth by definition vs. truth by fact). These six axes generate sixty-four epistemological positions. Mathematical knowledge is often considered rationalist, foundationalist (in some accounts), internalist, individualist, a priori, analytic. Historical knowledge is empiricist, coherentist, externalist, social, a posteriori, synthetic. The 6 Axes reveal that different domains of knowledge require different epistemological frameworks—one size doesn't fit all.

The 6 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum "You keep treating all knowledge like math. The 6 Axes show why that fails: math is a priori, analytic, rationalist. History is a posteriori, synthetic, empiricist. Same epistemology for both? That's like using the same tool for brain surgery and plumbing. Different domains, different axes, different standards."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 8 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum

A detailed model adding dimensions of certainty and scope. Axis 1: Rationalism-Empiricism. Axis 2: Foundationalism-Coherentism. Axis 3: Internalism-Externalism. Axis 4: Individualism-Socialism. Axis 5: A Priori-A Posteriori. Axis 6: Analytic-Synthetic. Axis 7: Certainty-Fallibilism (knowledge requires certainty vs. knowledge can be uncertain but still knowledge). Axis 8: Universal-Particular (knowledge of general laws vs. knowledge of specific facts). These eight axes create 256 epistemological positions, mapping the full complexity of human knowing. Scientific laws aim for universal, fallibilist, a posteriori, synthetic knowledge. Historical events are particular, fallibilist, a posteriori, synthetic. Mathematical truths aim for universal, certain (in some views), a priori, analytic. The 8 Axes demonstrate that epistemology isn't a monolith—it's a multidimensional space where different kinds of knowing occupy different coordinates.

The 8 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum "You say knowledge requires certainty. That's one position on axis 7. But most scientists are fallibilists—they know their knowledge could be wrong, and they call it knowledge anyway. The 8 Axes show you're not more rigorous—you're just on a different axis. Fallibilism isn't weakness; it's a different epistemology for a different kind of knowing."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 12 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum

An ultra-fine-grained model adding dimensions of access and structure. Building on the 8 Axes, we add: Axis 9: Direct-Indirect (knowledge through direct acquaintance vs. knowledge through description/inference). Axis 10: Explicit-Tacit (knowledge you can state vs. knowledge you can't articulate). Axis 11: Propositional-Procedural (knowing that vs. knowing how). Axis 12: Personal-Impersonal (knowledge that requires personal experience vs. knowledge available to anyone). These twelve axes generate 4096 epistemological positions. Knowing a person involves direct, tacit (partly), procedural (how to be with them), personal knowledge. Knowing physics involves indirect, explicit, propositional, impersonal knowledge. The 12 Axes reveal that epistemology must account for the full range of human knowing—not just the kind that fits in journal articles.

The 12 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum "You think all knowledge can be written down. The 12 Axes show otherwise: tacit knowledge (how to ride a bike) can't be captured in propositions. Procedural knowledge (knowing how) is different from propositional (knowing that). Personal knowledge (knowing a friend) requires experience you can't transfer. Your narrow epistemology doesn't describe knowledge—it describes one kind of knowledge, and it's not even the most important kind."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 16 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum

The ultimate model, adding the final dimensions of metaphysical commitment and epistemic value. Building on the 12 Axes, we add: Axis 13: Realist-Antirealist (knowledge aims to describe reality as it is vs. knowledge aims to manage experience). Axis 14: Objectivist-Constructivist (knowledge discovers what's there vs. knowledge builds what works). Axis 15: Universalist-Relativist (knowledge holds for everyone vs. knowledge is relative to framework). Axis 16: Valuable-Instrumental (knowledge good in itself vs. knowledge good for what it does). These sixteen axes generate 65,536 potential positions—enough to capture every epistemological theory, every debate, every perspective. The 16 Axes reveal that epistemology isn't a single question with a single answer—it's a multidimensional space of choices about what knowledge is, where it comes from, how it's structured, what it's for, and who it's for. Realist-objectivist-universalist-valuable knowledge is one vision (Plato). Constructivist-relativist-instrumental knowledge is another (pragmatism). The 16 Axes don't tell you which position is right—they give you language to understand why the debate is so rich, so old, and so unresolved.

The 16 Axes of the Epistemology Spectrum "You want one epistemology to rule them all. The 16 Axes show that's impossible—there are 65,536 possible positions, each with its own logic, its own strengths, its own blind spots. Realism works for physics maybe, but for ethics? Relativism is dangerous but also unavoidable. Constructivism explains science well but struggles with truth. The 16 Axes aren't a menu to choose from—they're a map of the territory. You're not looking for the right answer; you're looking for your coordinates. And until you know where you stand, you don't even know what you're asking."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 2 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum

A foundational model for distinguishing pseudoscience from science along two fundamental dimensions. The first axis runs from Methodologically Sound (uses scientific methods: hypothesis testing, peer review, self-correction) to Methodologically Unsound (relies on anecdote, authority, or unfalsifiable claims). The second axis runs from Progressive Research Program (generates new questions, evolves with evidence) to Stagnant Dogma (repeats same claims regardless of evidence, immune to falsification). These two axes create four categories: sound-progressive (mainstream science), sound-stagnant (some legit but moribund fields), unsound-progressive (rare—maybe early stages of fringe ideas that later become science), unsound-stagnant (classic pseudoscience: astrology, homeopathy). The model reveals that pseudoscience isn't simply "wrong science"—it's science that fails on methodology and refuses to progress.

The 2 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum "You keep calling anything you disagree with pseudoscience. The 2 Axes show otherwise: homeopathy is unsound and stagnant—that's pseudoscience. A controversial but testable hypothesis is unsound but progressive—that's fringe science, not pseudoscience. Different axes, different judgments. Learn the difference."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026

The 4 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum

An expanded model adding two crucial dimensions for finer discrimination. Axis 1: Methodological Soundness (valid methods vs. wishful thinking). Axis 2: Progressive-Stagnant (evolves vs. repeats). Axis 3: Falsifiability-Unfalsifiability (claims can be tested and potentially disproven vs. claims immune to counterevidence). Axis 4: Engagement-Ignorance (engages with scientific community and criticism vs. ignores or dismisses it). These four axes create sixteen positions. Creation science is unsound, stagnant, unfalsifiable (if God can create with apparent age), ignorant (dismisses evidence). String theory is sound, progressive, unfalsifiable (currently), engaged—so it's controversial science, not pseudoscience. The 4 Axes reveal that pseudoscience is defined by clusters of failures, not just one.

The 4 Axes of the Pseudoscience Spectrum "You think astrology is pseudoscience because it's wrong. The 4 Axes show it's deeper: astrology is unsound (anecdote-based), stagnant (same charts for millennia), unfalsifiable (vague predictions), ignorant (no engagement with astronomy). That's four failures, not one. Wrong isn't pseudoscience—refusing to engage with being wrong is."

by Dumu The Void February 25, 2026