Evidence method
The disciplinary spine
The spine places a claim by the evidence currently supporting it. It is not a permanent verdict and it does not make every claim within a tier equally plausible. A claim moves only when better, more independent evidence arrives.
- T1
Peer-reviewed and replicated
Ask: Has the result survived independent measurement or is it an established mathematical result with its scope stated precisely?
Examples: Static and dynamical Casimir effects; warp and wormhole metrics as mathematical solutions—not as demonstrated devices.
- T2
Peer-reviewed once
Ask: Is there a credible published result whose independent replication line is still developing?
Examples: Lattice confinement fusion results and other measurements that merit attention without yet earning textbook status.
- T3
Published program with dispute or null replication
Ask: Does a peer-reviewed proposal or measurement face strong critique, a tighter null result, or unresolved interpretation?
Examples: Vacuum-reaction accounts of inertia and the Eagleworks cavity-thrust line after tighter null testing.
- T4
Patent-attested or claim-only
Ask: Is the public evidence limited to legal documents, institutional assertions, demonstrations without adequate controls, or testimony?
Examples: Pais-effect engineering claims without public independent replication.
Two rules keep the spine honest
- Replication must be independent. Repetition by the same team or retelling by another outlet is not a new evidence line.
- Scope travels with the result. A valid mathematical solution proves the geometry is consistent; it does not prove a machine can produce the required matter or energy.