 |
[email protected] |
 |
3275638434 |
 |
 |
| Paper Publishing WeChat |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
CUI Weicheng
Full-Text PDF
XML 2 Views
DOI:10.17265/2159-5313/2026.01.003
Zhejiang Engineering Research Center of Micro/Nano-Photonic/Electronic System Integration, Hangzhou, China
Westlake University, Hangzhou, China
Defining science and demarcating it from pseudoscience are longstanding core issues in the philosophy of science. Hilbert’s traditional axiomatic standards (consistency, completeness, independence) struggle with modern complex systems, while existing demarcation criteria like replicability and Popper’s falsificationism have practical limitations. Analyzing incompatibilities in complex systems, this paper proposes a revised framework: modified Hilbert axiomatic standards (clearly defined concepts, logical consistency, unrefuted axioms) and dynamic demarcation criteria. Abandoning unattainable traditional requirements of completeness and independence, it emphasizes conceptual clarity, openness, and progressiveness, offering an operational, self-consistent basis for judging scientificity.
scientific standards,
axiomatic system, demarcation problem, logical consistency, dynamic
criteria
CUI Weicheng. (2026). A New Proposal for Scientific Standards: Modified Hilbert Axiomatic Standards and Dynamic Demarcation Criteria. Philosophy Study, Jan.-Feb. 2026, Vol. 16, No. 1, 30-44.
Blachowicz, J. (2009). How science textbooks treat scientific method: A philosopher’s perspective. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(2), 303-344.
Bohr, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 48, 696-702.
Braude, S. E. (2018). Editorial. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 32(2), 255-264. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.31275/2018/1330
Bunge, M. A. (1985). Cosmology: From myth to science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36(2), 173-188. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/36.2.173
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. London: Academic Press.
Cui, W. C. (2021). On an axiomatic foundation for a theory of everything. Philosophy Study, 11(4), 241-267. doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2021.04.001
Cui, W. C. (2024). Can science reveal the origin of the universe? European Journal of Applied Sciences, 12(1), 166-173. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.121.16256
Cui, W. C. (2026). Discussion on “Consequences of Undecidability in Physics on the Theory of Everything”. Accepted and to be published in Journal of Holography Applications in Physics, 6(6), 1-4.
Cui, W. C., Li, R., & Pan, L. L. (2024). Toward a unified theory for complex systems. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 12(5), 69-103. doi:10.14738/aivp.125.17556
Cui, W. C., Li, R., & Pan, L. L. (2025). Unified Complex Systems Theory (UCST): Resolving materialist dilemmas through dualist ontology and active force. European Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(5), 517-545. doi:10.14738/aivp.1305.19511
Cui, W. C., Li, R., Pan, L. L., & Zeng, L. L. (2025). The problem of logical self-circulation in modern scientific theories and its resolution. Philosophy Study, 15(6), 291-314. doi:10.17265/2159-5313/2025.06.001
Da Costa, N. C. A. (2011). Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and physics. Principia, 15(3), 453-459. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2011v15n3p453
De Queiroz, K. (2007). Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology, 56(6), 879-886. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10635150701701083
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., & Rosen, N. (1935). Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Physical Review, 47, 777-780.
Ellis, G. F. R. (2014). On the philosophy of cosmology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 46(1), 5-23.
Faizal, M., Krauss, L. M., Shabir, A., & Marino, F. (2025). Consequences of undecidability in physics on the theory of everything. Journal of Holographic Applied Physics, 5, 10-21.
Frigg, R. (2023). Models and theories a philosophical inquiry. London and New York: Routledge.
Giovannini, E. N., & Schiemer, G. (2025). Hilbert’s early metatheory revisited. Erkenntnis. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-025-00959-z
Gödel, K. (1931). About formally undecidable sentences of the principia mathematica and related systems I. Monthly Magazines for Mathematics and Physics, 38, 173-198.
Hansson, S. O. (2006). Falsificationism falsified. Foundations of Science, 11(3), 275-286. doi:10.1007/s10699-004-5922-1
Hilbert, D. (1902). Mathematical problems. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 8(10), 437-479.
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 91(C), 211-220. doi:10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.011
Hua, D., Petrina, N., Young, N., Cho, J.-G., & Poon, S. K. (2024). Understanding the factors influencing acceptability of AI in medical imaging domains among healthcare professionals: A scoping review. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, 147, 102698. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2023.102698
Johansson, L.-G. (2016). Philosophy of science for scientists. NY: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Maudlin, T. (2018). Ontological clarity via canonical presentation: Electromagnetism and the Aharonov-Bohm effect. Entropy, 20(6), 465-485. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.3390/e20060465
Mukerji, N., & Ernst, E. (2022). Why homoeopathy is pseudoscience. Synthese, 200, Article 394. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03882-w
Newton, I. (1846). Newton’s principia: The mathematical principles of natural philosophy. (A. Motte, Trans.). New York: Daniel Adee. (Original work published 1687)
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560-1563. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755
Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018). Distributional national accounts: Methods and estimates for the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(2), 553-609. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1086/696699
Planck Collaboration. (2020). Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (2002 ed.). London: Routledge.
Robertson, D. S. (2000). Goedel’s theorem, the theory of everything, and the future of science and mathematics. Complexity, 5(5), 22-27. doi:10.1002/1099-0526(200005/06)5:53.0.CO;2-0
Rovelli, C. (2018). Reality is not what it seems: The journey to quantum gravity. New York: Riverhead Books.
Walach, H. (2019). Beyond a materialist worldview-towards an expanded science. Scientific and Medical Network. Retrieved from www.explore.scimednet.org
Weber, M. (2002). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. In N. W. Biggart (Ed.), Readings in economic sociology (Chap. 3). Malden, Massachusetts: Wiley. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470755679
Weinberg, S. (2011). Dreams of a final theory: The scientist’s search for the ultimate laws of nature. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN:978-0-307-78786-6
Whitaker, A. (2006). Einstein, Bohr and the quantum dilemma—From quantum theory to quantum information (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, Y. L., Zhang, H., & Li, J. Q. (2024). Quantum gravitational corrections to Schwinger pair production in strongly curved spacetimes: Implications for black hole accretion disks. Physical Review D, 109(8), 084032. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.084032