Genealogy of Epistemic Status: A Seven-Tier Framework for Scientific Claims

Abstract The perennial demarcation problem, resistant to binary solutions from Popperian falsification to post-Kuhnian paradigms, calls for a genealogical reconceptualization of scientific legitimacy. This article proposes a dynamic, seven-tier framework that shifts the philosophical question from whether a claim is scientific to how it accrues epistemic status within the scientific ecosystem. The spectrum spans from fertile heuristic analogies (L1) and pure metaphysical speculation (L2), through contested methodological debates (L3), to stabilized operational principles (L4), experimentally-tested metaphysics (L5), active research programmes (L6), and finally, entrenched consensus (L7). The framework’s analytical power is demonstrated through two critical transitions: the materialization of philosophical disputes into infrastructural tools (L3→L4), exemplified by the atomism debate’s resolution via perceptual instrumentation, and the leap from validated radical ideas to progressive research programmes (L5→L6), governed by Lakatosian heuristic potency. This model provides a diagnostic tool for contemporary controversies, clarifying, for instance, the stalled status of Integrated Information Theory at L5 versus the resilient programmatic character of string theory at L6, despite similar empirical constraints. Ultimately, it offers a pragmatic map for navigating the complex landscape of scientific knowledge production and critique. Keywords: Demarcation Problem, Genealogy of Science, Epistemic Status, Epistemic Tiers, Scientific Maturity, Philosophy of Science in Practice, Research Programmes.