A framework asserting that
evidence only acquires meaning relative to a set of parameters (what counts as relevant, how it is measured) and a reference
frame (the background theory, the community standards). The same piece of
evidence can support contradictory conclusions if the parameters or frames differ. The theory demands that evidentiary claims be accompanied by explicit parameters and frames, and that disputes often reflect frame differences rather than factual disagreements.
Example: “The fossil was
evidence for
evolution in the biological frame, but for creationism in a literalist frame. The theory of parameters and reference frames of evidence explains how the same object can be used to support opposite claims.”
Theory of Parameters and Reference Frames of Demarcation
A
meta‑framework arguing that the boundary between science and non‑science is not absolute but depends on a set of parameters (criteria used, threshold values) and a reference frame (historical period, discipline, cultural context). Different demarcation criteria (falsifiability, puzzle‑solving, empirical
success) produce different boundaries. The theory rejects a
single, universal demarcation
line, advocating instead for explicit specification of which parameters and frames are being used when declaring something “scientific” or “pseudoscientific.”
Example: “She pointed out that by Popper’
s parameters, some parts of cosmology are not falsifiable. The theory of parameters and reference frames of demarcation reminds us: the boundary shifts with the chosen criteria.”
