Foundational physics distinguishes between principle theories, which stipulate empirically confirmed generalizations as postulates, and constructive theories, which derive the same phenomena from deeper mechanisms and building blocks. A constructive theory must satisfy the same standards of mathematical consistency and empirical rigor, but in addition yields an explanatory surplus that principle theories cannot provide. Precisely this dual character has been systematically misjudged by a discipline that has been oriented predominantly toward principle-based and instrumentalist approaches for roughly a century. This paper does not examine whether a particular theory is true, but whether the procedure of appraisal is consistent. At the center stands a single error pattern: the axis jump---the jump from a deficit on the confirmation axis (unconfirmed, unfinished) to an imputed defect on the truth axis (false, worthless)---combined with the asymmetric exculpation of the established theory. We characterize this double standard first as the underlying mechanism and subsequently catalog a taxonomy of recurring, resulting appraisal traps---from the scale-mismatch fallacy to the redundancy fallacy to source devaluation. Each trap is presented together with the legitimate core of the objection and a concrete asymmetry test: the same deficit appears, specifically, in textbook physics, yet is not criticized there. A formal model of belief dynamics explains why these errors persist even among reviewers who can name them---the defensive response is experienced as rigor rather than as bias. Historical cases, later rehabilitated cases, the author's own experience, and reproducible dialogues with large language models document a present-day, systemic pattern. As a remedy, we propose the symmetric Perrin--Whewell standard. It accounts for rigor and surplus separately, provides positive criteria such as rigidity, consilience, and structural compression, and can, by means of a counterfactual test, explicitly also sort out constructive work.
Oliver Marc Wittwer (Thu,) studied this question.