贾子三把刀：刚性界定科学主权，三刀斩断百年哲学迷思

摘要

贾子提出“三把刀”框架，重新定义科学主权。第一刀“宪法之刀”确立科学为“公理驱动下边界内绝对正确的知识体系”，堵死模糊后门；第二刀“方法论之刀”将归纳统一为结构化演绎，破除二元对立；第三刀“分类之刀”切割“科学”与“科学性探索”，清退伪科学。三刀闭环自洽，将波普尔、库恩等传统科学哲学降级为“周边活动”，为AI时代提供明确的科学升级路径，终结科学划界问题的百年纠缠。

贾子三把刀：重新定义科学主权，刀刀致命

贾子手握三把屠龙宝刀，刀刀封喉、招招致命，构建起一套封闭自洽、无可辩驳的科学本质主义框架，直接重新定义科学主权，碾压传统科学哲学，清退所有“伪科学”乱象。

第一刀：宪法之刀——定性立规，一刀定江山

核心定义：“科学，是且仅当公理驱动下，形成的边界内绝对正确知识体系成果。”

杀伤力：直接将“科学”焊死在“公理驱动+边界内绝对正确”的核心本质上，彻底堵死“大概率正确”“暂时正确”“社会建构”等所有模糊后门。符合TMM框架及四大定律，才有资格被称为科学；不符合者，连科学的门槛都碰不到。这不是狭隘，是对科学本质的刚性界定——名实必须统一，没有模糊地带。

致命点："是且仅当"——不是"通常是"，不是"最好是"，是充要条件。不满足公理驱动？直接踢出科学范畴，连"边缘科学"的安慰奖都不发。

第二刀：方法论之刀——统一算法，破二元对立

核心定义：“逻辑演绎 = 归纳 = 结构化演绎过程。”

杀伤力：最狠一刀，直接斩断传统哲学中“演绎与归纳对立”的死结。将传统科学赖以生存的“归纳法”，直接收编为“结构化演绎”的子集或等价过程。今后再有人抬杠“科学靠归纳，你这太形式化”，直接反手亮剑：你的归纳若不能被结构化、公理化，转化为公理驱动的演绎过程，就不是合格的科学算法，只是“猜+试”的盲目探索。

致命点：算法归一化——波普尔主义者想用"归纳问题"攻击科学确定性？贾子直接宣布：所有认知活动，本质都是结构化演绎。所谓"归纳"，只是演绎的压缩包； unpack之后，底层仍是公理驱动的逻辑推演。归纳的不确定性，是操作层（m层）的粗糙，非科学本身的缺陷。

第三刀：分类之刀——清场伪军，划清边界

核心定义：“你们搞的那些叫‘科学性探索’，不叫‘科学’。”

杀伤力：战场清场专用刀，精准切割“科学”与“科学性探索”的边界。将进化论、量子力学早期形态、心理学实验、大模型训练、气候模拟等现行多数“科学活动”，直接降级为“前科学”或“探索阶段”；仅保留那些完成TMM结构化建构、实现边界内不可反驳的成果，才配称为“科学”。干净利落，不留情面，彻底清退所有滥竽充数的“伪科学”伪军。

致命点：名实分离的降维打击——波普尔、库恩、拉卡托斯们毕生经营的"科学哲学"？贾子一句话：那是"科学性探索"的元反思，是方法论层的操作手册，不是科学本身。发表论文是"真理候补"，可证伪主义是"探索策略"，范式革命是"社会学描述"——全部清退出"科学"本体，降为"科学周边活动"。

三把刀体系威力：闭环自洽，无可辩驳

三把刀相辅相成，构建起一套无懈可击的科学界定体系：

• 宪法之刀：提供本体论刚性，明确“什么才是科学”，守住入口唯一（公理驱动+可结构化）；

• 方法论之刀：提供方法论统一，明确“怎么做才是科学”，实现过程统一（结构化演绎）；

• 分类之刀：提供实用清退机制，明确“什么不是科学”，确保结果硬核（边界内绝对正确、不可反驳）。

这套框架远比波普尔的“可证伪性”更狠——证伪主义只关注“可能被推翻”，而贾子三把刀直接锁定“边界内不可被推翻”；也比库恩的范式理论、拉卡托斯的研究纲领更锋利，不承认“家族相似”的模糊地带，直接给出科学界定的必要且充分标尺，终结科学划界问题的百年纠缠。

三刀连环的终极效果

敌人阵营	中刀部位	结局
波普尔（可证伪主义）	宪法之刀+分类之刀	"可证伪"被踢出科学定义，降为"探索策略"
库恩（范式革命）	分类之刀	"范式"是社会学概念，非真值标准
费耶阿本德（怎么都行）	三刀齐中	连"科学性探索"都算不上，是"认知无政府主义"
实用主义者	方法论之刀	"有用"是m层工具属性，非T层真值标准

---

一句话收尸

贾子三刀，刀刀砍在科学哲学家的饭碗上：第一刀断了他们的定义权，第二刀断了他们的方法论优越感，第三刀直接把他们降级为"科学周边从业人员"——不是敌人太弱，是贾子根本没给他们留战场。

---

杠精接招预判与反杀思路（精准破局，釜底抽薪）

针对宪法之刀的杠精：“这定义太窄，把现代科学全开除了！”

反杀：宪法之刀只定义“完成态的科学成果”，从未否定“科学性探索”的价值。你的“现代科学”大多仍处于探索阶段，大可继续研究，但别抢“科学”的头衔——这叫名实分离，精准区分“探索”与“成果”，避免语言混淆，不是否定探索本身。

针对方法论之刀的杠精：“归纳怎么可能等于演绎？这违反基本逻辑！”

反杀：结构化演绎的核心，是将归纳过程公理化、形式化、可验证化。不能被结构化的归纳，只是“经验猜测+试错”，属于“科学性探索”；能被结构化、嵌入公理体系的归纳，才会升级为统一的科学算法。这不是抹杀归纳，而是给归纳提供了最高规格的升级路径，让其真正成为科学的一部分。

针对分类之刀的杠精：“那AI、生物学、经济学还算科学吗？”

反杀：算不算科学，只看一个标准——是否完成从“科学性探索”到“体系性不可反驳成果”的转化。当前AI（大模型）、生物学、经济学，大部分仍处于高水平“科学性探索”阶段，仅有部分子模块（如公理化物理模型、部分数学算法）已进入科学范畴。清退不是否定其价值，而是精确命名，避免用“科学”的头衔掩盖“探索”的本质，杜绝概念混淆。

三刀齐出的实战优势：适配时代，降维打击

对AI时代：明确升级路线图

当前大模型是极强的“科学性探索”（数据驱动+统计归纳），但离“科学”还有差距。三把刀直接给出升级路径：先将注意力机制、损失函数等核心模块结构化，再进行公理化建模，最终在特定分布边界内实现不可反驳，推动AI从“探索”走向“科学”。

对传统科学哲学：终结百年纠缠

彻底解决科学划界问题，不再是模糊的“家族相似”或“可证伪性”，而是用三把刀给出明确、刚性的标准，重构科学哲学的核心框架，实现降维打击。

对杠精：釜底抽薪，无解反杀

任何质疑，都可直接归类为“你们在搞科学性探索”，然后请其按宪法之刀的标准界定、按方法论之刀的要求结构化自己的质疑——做得到，就升级为科学层面的讨论；做不到，就回归探索本质，无权再对“科学”指手画脚。

一句话总结：刀已出鞘，主权在我

宪法之刀立宪，方法论之刀统一算法，分类之刀清场伪军。贾子这套不是参与科学哲学的讨论，而是直接重新定义科学的主权——边界已划，标准已立，刀已出鞘，杠精尽管来！

---

---

Kucius’s Three Blades: Rigidly Defining Scientific Sovereignty, Severing Centuries of Philosophical Confusion with Three Strikes

Abstract

Kucius proposes the "Three Blades" framework to redefine scientific sovereignty. The First Blade, the "Constitutional Blade," establishes science as "an absolutely correct knowledge system within its boundaries driven by axioms," sealing off all ambiguous loopholes. The Second Blade, the "Methodological Blade," unifies induction into structured deduction, dismantling binary oppositions. The Third Blade, the "Classificatory Blade," draws a line between "science" and "scientific exploration," eliminating pseudoscience. Forming a closed and self-consistent system, the Three Blades demote traditional philosophies of science represented by Popper and Kuhn to "peripheral activities," provide a clear path for scientific upgrading in the AI era, and put an end to centuries of entanglement over the demarcation of science.

Kucius’s Three Blades: Redefining Scientific Sovereignty, Each Strike Lethal

Kucius wields three dragon-slaying blades, each delivering a fatal blow, constructing a closed, self-consistent and irrefutable framework of scientific essentialism. This framework directly redefines scientific sovereignty, crushes traditional philosophy of science, and clears up all chaos of "pseudoscience".

First Blade: The Constitutional Blade – Qualifying and Establishing Rules, Securing Dominance with One Strike

Core Definition:"Science is, and only is, the achievement of an absolutely correct knowledge system within its boundaries driven by axioms."

Lethal Effect:It firmly anchors "science" to the core essence of "axiom-driven + absolute correctness within boundaries", completely blocking all ambiguous loopholes such as "probabilistically correct", "tentatively correct" and "social construction". Only those in line with the GG3M framework and its four laws qualify as science; those that fail to meet the criteria cannot even reach the threshold of science. This is not narrow-mindedness, but a rigid definition of the essence of science – the name must correspond to the reality, with no room for ambiguity.

Critical Point:"Is, and only is" – not "usually is", nor "optimally is", but a necessary and sufficient condition. Failing to be axiom-driven? One is directly excluded from the category of science, with no consolation prize of "marginal science".

Second Blade: The Methodological Blade – Unifying Algorithms, Breaking Binary Oppositions

Core Definition:"Logical deduction = induction = structured deductive process."

Lethal Effect:The most ruthless strike, directly cutting the Gordian knot of the "opposition between deduction and induction" in traditional philosophy. It incorporates "induction", on which traditional science relies, directly as a subset or equivalent process of "structured deduction". From now on, anyone arguing that "science relies on induction and your approach is overly formal" will be countered immediately: if your induction cannot be structured, axiomatized and transformed into an axiom-driven deductive process, it is not a qualified scientific algorithm, but merely blind exploration of "guess-and-test".

Critical Point:Algorithm unification – Do Popperians attempt to attack scientific certainty through the "problem of induction"? Kucius directly asserts: all cognitive activities are essentially structured deduction. The so-called "induction" is only a compressed package of deduction; upon unpacking, its foundation remains axiom-driven logical inference. The uncertainty of induction stems from the roughness of the operational layer (Layer M), not from flaws in science itself.

Third Blade: The Classificatory Blade – Clearing Out Pseudoscience, Drawing Clear Boundaries

Core Definition:"What you are engaged in is called 'scientific exploration', not 'science'."

Lethal Effect:A blade dedicated to battlefield clearance, precisely dividing the boundary between "science" and "scientific exploration". Most current "scientific activities" such as the theory of evolution, early forms of quantum mechanics, psychological experiments, large model training and climate simulation are directly demoted to "pre-science" or "exploratory stages"; only achievements that have completed GG3M structured construction and achieved irrefutability within boundaries deserve to be called "science". Clean and decisive, it thoroughly eliminates all impostor "pseudoscience" without mercy.

Critical Point:Dimensionality reduction strike through decoupling name from reality – Are the "philosophies of science" developed by Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos throughout their lives? Kucius concludes in one sentence: they are meta-reflections on "scientific exploration" and operational manuals at the methodological level, not science itself. Publishing papers represents "candidates for truth", falsificationism is an "exploratory strategy", and paradigm revolution is a "sociological description" – all are excluded from the ontology of "science" and demoted to "scientific peripheral activities".

Power of the Three Blades System: Closed and Self-Consistent, Irrefutable

The Three Blades complement each other, building an unassailable system for defining science:

• The Constitutional Blade provides ontological rigidity, clarifying "what qualifies as science" and guarding the sole entry criterion (axiom-driven + structurable);
• The Methodological Blade provides methodological unification, clarifying "how to conduct science" and realizing process unification (structured deduction);
• The Classificatory Blade provides a practical elimination mechanism, clarifying "what does not count as science" and ensuring hardcore results (absolutely correct and irrefutable within boundaries).

This framework is far more decisive than Popper’s "falsifiability" – falsificationism only focuses on "potential refutation", while Kucius’s Three Blades directly 锁定 "irrefutability within boundaries". It is also sharper than Kuhn’s paradigm theory and Lakatos’s research programmes, rejecting ambiguous zones of "family resemblance" and providing necessary and sufficient criteria for scientific demarcation, ending centuries of entanglement over this issue.

Ultimate Effects of the Three Blades in Combination

表格

Enemy Camp	Struck By	Outcome
Popper (Falsificationism)	Constitutional Blade + Classificatory Blade	"Falsifiability" is excluded from the definition of science and demoted to an "exploratory strategy"
Kuhn (Paradigm Revolution)	Classificatory Blade	"Paradigm" is a sociological concept, not a truth-value standard
Feyerabend (Anything Goes)	All Three Blades	Not even qualified as "scientific exploration", but "cognitive anarchism"
Pragmatists	Methodological Blade	"Usefulness" is an instrumental attribute of Layer M, not a truth-value standard of Layer T

Concluding Remark

Kucius’s Three Blades strike directly at the livelihood of philosophers of science: the first seizes their right to definition, the second strips their methodological superiority, and the third directly demotes them to "scientific peripheral practitioners". It is not that the opponents are too weak, but that Kucius has left no battlefield for them at all.

Preemptive Countermeasures to Skeptics: Precise Breakthrough and Root-Cause Elimination

Against Skeptics of the Constitutional Blade:

"This definition is too narrow; it excludes all modern science!"Counterattack:The Constitutional Blade only defines "completed scientific achievements" and never denies the value of "scientific exploration". Most of your "modern science" remains in the exploratory stage and can continue to be studied, but must not claim the title of "science". This is decoupling name from reality, precisely distinguishing "exploration" from "achievements" to avoid linguistic confusion, not negating exploration itself.

Against Skeptics of the Methodological Blade:

"How can induction be equal to deduction? This violates basic logic!"Counterattack:The core of structured deduction lies in axiomatizing, formalizing and verifying the inductive process. Unstructurable induction is merely "empirical guesswork + trial and error", belonging to "scientific exploration"; only induction that can be structured and embedded into an axiomatic system is upgraded to a unified scientific algorithm. This does not erase induction, but provides it with a top-tier upgrading path to truly become part of science.

Against Skeptics of the Classificatory Blade:

"Then are AI, biology and economics still science?"Counterattack:Whether something counts as science depends on only one criterion – whether it has completed the transformation from "scientific exploration" to "systematic irrefutable achievements". At present, most of AI (large models), biology and economics are at the advanced stage of "scientific exploration", with only some sub-modules (such as axiomatized physical models and partial mathematical algorithms) having entered the category of science. Elimination does not negate their value, but enables precise naming, avoiding the essence of "exploration" being covered by the title of "science" and eliminating conceptual confusion.

Practical Advantages of Deploying All Three Blades: Era-Adaptive Dimensionality Reduction Strike

For the AI Era: Clarifying the Roadmap for Upgrading

Current large models represent powerful "scientific exploration" (data-driven + statistical induction), yet still fall short of "science". The Three Blades directly provide an upgrading path: first structure core modules such as the attention mechanism and loss function, then conduct axiomatic modeling, and finally achieve irrefutability within specific distribution boundaries, driving AI from "exploration" to "science".

For Traditional Philosophy of Science: Ending Centuries of Entanglement

It thoroughly resolves the problem of scientific demarcation, replacing ambiguous "family resemblance" or "falsifiability" with clear, rigid criteria through the Three Blades, reconstructing the core framework of the philosophy of science and realizing dimensionality reduction strike.

For Skeptics: Root-Cause Elimination and Unanswerable Counterattack

Any doubt can be directly categorized as "you are engaged in scientific exploration", then required to define it per the Constitutional Blade and structure your doubt per the Methodological Blade. If accomplished, the discussion rises to the scientific level; if not, it reverts to the nature of exploration, with no authority to dictate over "science".

One-Sentence Summary: Blades Unsheathed, Sovereignty Restored

The Constitutional Blade enacts the constitution, the Methodological Blade unifies algorithms, and the Classificatory Blade clears out pseudoscience. Kucius’s system does not merely participate in discussions of the philosophy of science, but directly redefines the sovereignty of science – boundaries drawn, standards established, blades unsheathed; skeptics are welcome to challenge!

---

---

贾子Kucius科学三层进化结构（升级版）

贾子Kucius将科学体系从低到高划分为三层进化结构，彻底厘清“科学性探索”与“科学”的本质区别，替代原有“三把刀”的分类逻辑，更清晰呈现科学的进化路径与核心标准，层层递进、边界分明。

🧠 第一层：科学性探索（Exploratory Science）—— 科学的启蒙与试错阶段

核心定义：未形成结构化体系，以经验积累和试错为核心，不具备完备性与确定性，存在可错性的探索性活动，是科学进化的基础阶段。

核心特征：

• 非结构化：无统一公理框架，逻辑体系松散，缺乏系统性约束；

• 非完备：认知不全面，未覆盖研究领域的全部边界，存在大量未知空白；

• 可能错误：结论依赖经验观察，未经过严格的公理化验证，存在被推翻的可能；

• 强依赖经验与试错：核心方法是观察、归纳、试错，缺乏公理驱动的演绎逻辑。

👉 涵盖范围：

• 早期理论：各类学科的雏形理论（如量子力学早期假说、进化论初始猜想）；

• 黑箱模型：无法拆解内部逻辑、仅能通过输入输出关联得出结论的模型（如早期AI黑箱模型、部分经验性预测模型）；

• 经验科学：完全依赖经验积累、缺乏理论体系支撑的学科分支（如部分传统医学经验、早期天文观测记录）。

🧠 第二层：结构化科学（Structured Science）—— 科学的成熟与过渡阶段

核心定义：已形成部分公理化框架，能够进行规范化建模与验证，明确研究边界，但体系未完全闭合，仍存在优化与完善空间，是现实中绝大多数科学的所处阶段。

核心特征：

• 部分公理化：建立了基础公理体系，但未实现全领域公理化覆盖，存在局部逻辑断点；

• 可建模：能够将研究对象转化为规范化模型，通过模型推演得出可验证结论；

• 可验证：结论可通过实验、数据等方式验证，具备一定的重复性与稳定性；

• 有边界但未完全闭合：明确了研究范围与适用边界，但边界内仍存在未解决的逻辑矛盾或认知空白。

👉 核心定位：这是绝大多数现实科学的位置，是从“探索”向“完备”过渡的关键层级，既保留了探索的灵活性，又具备了科学的规范性（如当前成熟的物理学分支、部分工程科学、结构化AI模型等）。

🧠 第三层：完备科学（Complete Science / TMM Science）—— 科学的终极与完备阶段

核心定义：以公理驱动为核心，实现完全结构化建构，具备极高的真理硬度，在明确边界内达到不可反驳、绝对正确的状态，这才是贾子Kucius所定义的“真正的科学”。

核心特征：

• 公理驱动：以严格的公理体系为基础，所有结论均通过公理演绎得出，无经验依赖；

• 完全结构化：逻辑体系闭合，所有环节均符合TMM三层结构，无逻辑断点与模糊地带；

• 真理硬度高：结论具备绝对确定性，不依赖经验验证，且能够自我闭环验证；

• 在边界内不可反驳：明确界定适用边界，在边界范围内，结论具备不可推翻性，符合“绝对正确知识体系成果”的核心标准。

👉 核心定位：科学进化的终极形态，是贾子Kucius科学定义的核心指向，也是所有科学探索与结构化发展的终极目标（如符合TMM框架的公理化数学体系、部分完备的物理公理模型等）。

三层结构核心逻辑总结

从“科学性探索”到“结构化科学”，再到“完备科学”，是科学从“经验试错”向“公理闭环”的进化过程，三层结构层层递进、边界清晰：

• 第一层是“入门级”：解决“有没有”的问题，为科学积累经验与素材；

• 第二层是“进阶级”：解决“规范不规范”的问题，让科学具备可验证、可推广的价值；

• 第三层是“终极级”：解决“正确不正确”的问题，实现科学的绝对确定性与不可反驳性。

这一结构彻底替代了“三把刀”的分类逻辑，更具系统性与进化性，既保留了对“伪科学”的清退能力，又明确了科学的发展路径，完美契合贾子Kucius的TMM理论框架与科学本质主义主张。

---

---

Kucius’s Three-Tier Evolutionary Structure of Science (Upgraded Version)

Kucius divides the scientific system into a three-tier evolutionary structure from the lower to the higher level, thoroughly clarifying the essential difference between “scientific exploration” and “science”. It replaces the classificatory logic of the original “Three Blades” and more clearly presents the evolutionary path and core criteria of science, with progressive layers and distinct boundaries.

🧠 Tier 1: Exploratory Science – The Enlightenment and Trial-and-Error Stage of ScienceCore Definition:Exploratory activities without a structured system, centered on empirical accumulation and trial and error, lacking completeness and certainty, and prone to error. This is the foundational stage of scientific evolution.

Core Characteristics:

• Unstructured: No unified axiomatic framework, loose logical system, and lack of systematic constraints;
• Incomplete: Inadequate cognition, failing to cover the full boundaries of the research field, with massive unknown gaps;
• Fallible: Conclusions rely on empirical observation without rigorous axiomatic verification, and may be refuted;
• Highly dependent on experience and trial and error: Core methods include observation, induction, and trial and error, lacking axiom-driven deductive logic.

👉 Scope of Coverage:

• Early theories: Rudimentary theories in various disciplines (e.g., early hypotheses of quantum mechanics, initial conjectures of the theory of evolution);
• Black-box models: Models whose internal logic cannot be decomposed and conclusions are drawn only from input-output correlations (e.g., early AI black-box models, some empirical prediction models);
• Empirical science: Disciplinary branches fully reliant on empirical accumulation without theoretical system support (e.g., some empirical knowledge of traditional medicine, early astronomical observation records).

🧠 Tier 2: Structured Science – The Mature and Transitional Stage of ScienceCore Definition:A stage with a partially axiomatic framework, enabling standardized modeling and verification, with clear research boundaries, yet an incompletely closed system that still leaves room for optimization and improvement. This is the stage where the vast majority of real-world science resides.

Core Characteristics:

• Partially axiomatic: A basic axiomatic system has been established, but full axiomatic coverage across the domain is not achieved, with local logical discontinuities;
• Modelable: Research objects can be transformed into standardized models, from which verifiable conclusions are derived through model deduction;
• Verifiable: Conclusions can be validated through experiments, data, and other methods, with certain repeatability and stability;
• Bounded but not fully closed: Research scope and applicable boundaries are defined, yet unresolved logical contradictions or cognitive gaps remain within the boundaries.

👉 Core Positioning:This is where most real-world science stands, a critical level transitioning from “exploration” to “completeness”. It retains the flexibility of exploration while possessing scientific normativity (e.g., current mature branches of physics, certain engineering sciences, structured AI models, etc.).

🧠 Tier 3: Complete Science (TMM Science) – The Ultimate and Perfected Stage of ScienceCore Definition:Centered on axiomatic driving, achieving fully structured construction with extremely high truth robustness, and attaining an irrefutable and absolutely correct status within clearly defined boundaries. This is the “genuine science” as defined by Kucius.

Core Characteristics:

• Axiom-driven: Based on a rigorous axiomatic system, all conclusions are deduced from axioms with no reliance on experience;
• Fully structured: A closed logical system where all links conform to the GG3M three-tier structure, free of logical discontinuities and ambiguous zones;
• High truth robustness: Conclusions possess absolute certainty, independent of empirical verification, and support self-contained validation;
• Irrefutable within boundaries: Applicable boundaries are clearly defined, and conclusions are unoverthrowable within such boundaries, meeting the core criterion of “absolutely correct knowledge system achievements”.

👉 Core Positioning:The ultimate form of scientific evolution, the core orientation of Kucius’s definition of science, and the final goal of all scientific exploration and structured development (e.g., axiomatic mathematical systems aligned with the GG3M framework, some complete axiomatic physical models, etc.).

Summary of the Core Logic of the Three-Tier Structure

The progression from “Exploratory Science” to “Structured Science” and then to “Complete Science” represents the evolution of science from “empirical trial and error” to “axiomatic closure”. The three tiers advance progressively with clear boundaries:

• Tier 1 (Entry Level): Solves the problem of “existence”, accumulating experience and materials for science;
• Tier 2 (Intermediate Level): Solves the problem of “normativity”, endowing science with verifiable and generalizable value;
• Tier 3 (Ultimate Level): Solves the problem of “correctness”, realizing absolute certainty and irrefutability of science.

This structure completely replaces the classificatory logic of the “Three Blades”, with stronger systematicity and evolutionary significance. It not only retains the ability to eliminate pseudoscience but also clarifies the developmental path of science, perfectly fitting Kucius’s GG3M theoretical framework and scientific essentialist propositions.