Modern discourse is drowning not in a lack of information, but in a collapse of the basic structures that make truth possible. Political arguments, scientific claims, cultural commentary, theological disputes, psychological theories—across every domain, people confidently evaluate propositions without ever asking the one question that determines whether a statement can be true at all:
Are the categories in this claim capable of relating in reality?
This question is almost never asked.Instead, contemporary reasoning typically begins at the level of:
Yet all of these procedures presuppose that the categories being reasoned about can even relate in the way the proposition asserts. When they cannot, the entire evaluative effort is wasted: the proposition is not merely false—it is not testable as truth at all. It is an ontological non-starter, a structural impossibility, masquerading as a meaningful statement.
This missing first step is the primary reason modern reasoning repeatedly collapses into:
To restore the architecture of truth, this essay introduces two tools that finally formalize the preconditions of meaningful evaluation:
OCBM is the first gate of truth. It establishes whether a statement’s categories are structured in such a way that a relation is even possible in reality. If the categories collapse, mismatch, skip levels, or violate modal coherence, the claim cannot be evaluated logically or empirically because it does not survive the threshold of ontological admissibility.
OCBM therefore restores what modern thought abandoned: Ontology precedes epistemology. Structure precedes reasoning. Being precedes claims about being.
When a proposition survives OCBM but still contains no genuine relation, RSD diagnoses the type of illusion that makes it appear meaningful.
Every false relation reduces to one of four structures of semblance:
RSD reveals not only that the relation is false, but how the mind was tricked into perceiving a connection.
Logic does not validate reality; it only manipulates structure. When applied to real relations, it reveals truth.When applied to semblance, it generates coherent illusions mistaken for truth.
Logic is therefore the third step—not the first.
Empirical validation is meaningful only when applied to propositions that survive:
ontological admissibility (OCBM),
relational legitimacy (RSD),
and structural coherence (logic).
Most contemporary debates never reach this stage because they fail the first gate.
This essay reconstructs the forgotten architecture of evaluation using a three-step diagnostic pipeline:
OCBM — determines whether the relation is possible at all.
RSD — diagnoses the appearance of a relation when no genuine relation exists.
Logic — applied only after ontology and semblance have been cleared.
This restores the proper order of reasoning:
Ontology → Semblance → Logic → Evidence → Truth
The result is a toolset capable of:
In a culture increasingly shaped by narratives, persuasion, and semantic manipulation, these tools restore visibility to the ontological structures that make truth possible and falsity detectable.
In what follows, we introduce a three-stage diagnostic architecture: (1) an Ontological Category-Boundary Method (OCBM), (2) a Relational Semblance Diagnostics (RSD) tool, and (3) classical logic applied only to the claims that survive both. The rest of the essay simply unpacks, tests, and applies this sequence.
Every argument assumes that its categories are legitimate and that its relations are meaningful. But this assumption is almost always false.
Reasoning does not begin with logic.Reasoning begins with ontology — with the fundamental question:
Are the things being related even capable of relating?
If the categories are malformed, mismatched, or ontologically incoherent, then logic becomes the servant of illusion rather than the servant of truth.
This section establishes the single most counterintuitive fact in the entire framework:
But if the premises are malformed, then “what follows” is irrelevant to reality.
Logic assumes that:
But logic has no tools to test any of these. Logic is downstream. Ontology is upstream. This is why logic often appears to validate statements that are completely unreal.
Example:
Logic “works” syntactically while failing ontologically.
If two terms are syntactically substitutable, logic assumes they belong to the same real category. This is where the entire world of ideological rhetoric and reductionist science gains its power. Logic cannot detect that:
Yet these terms are swapped constantly in discourse,and logic obediently treats them as though they were identical.
The result:
Semantic drift becomes ontological drift, which logic then reinforces.
Logic has no mechanism to evaluate whether:
That requires ontology.
Examples:
Logic cannot see that these are impossible.It can only manipulate them once stated.
If falsifying a claim requires collapsing a category, then the claim was never relational — it was a disguised identity.
Logic cannot detect:
These are ontological violations.
Example:
“Truth is subjective.”
To falsify this, one must:
Thus the statement is not false. It is invalid. Logic cannot detect invalidity. Only OCBM can.
This is the crucial clarification (now stated explicitly):
When logic is applied to semblance, the conclusions appear valid but are epistemically empty.Logic becomes a coherence-amplifier for illusion, not a truth-detector.
Semblance gives propositions:
Logic then strengthens those forms. This is how: achieve an aura of legitimacy.
Not through truth.But through coherent illusion.
The order of truth-evaluation is this:
Ontology first — Are the categories real?
OCBM next — Can the categories meaningfully relate?
RSD next — Is the relation genuine or semblant?
Logic last — Only applied to ontologically valid propositions.
Logic can only evaluate truth at Step 4.Everything else is illusion dressed up in reasoning.
This section exposes why modern discourse fails.The next section establishes the tool required to repair the failure.
Most invalid claims do not fail because of bad logic, weak evidence, or fallacies. They fail because they describe relational interactions that cannot occur, even in principle.
We routinely encounter claims such as:
These statements may sound meaningful. They may feel persuasive. They may even appear to correlate with observable patterns.
But they fail on a deeper level: they attempt to connect ontological categories that have no real hinge of relation.
These are not factual errors—they are category errors. Before we ever reach questions of evidence, logic, or interpretation, we must ask:
Do the kinds referenced in the statement even belong to a relationally compatible domain?
If not, the statement cannot be true. It is not a “false” statement; it is an inadmissible one. This is what traditional philosophy and logic have never formally addressed.
Determining Whether a Claim Can Even Be True
Before a proposition can be tested, compared, debated, or reasoned about,a prior question must be answered:
Are the categories in the statement even capable of being related?
If not, the statement is not false.It is invalid — an ontological non-starter.
OCBM is the method that determines this.
Unlike logic, which manipulates form,OCBM inspects reality-structure:
This makes OCBM the first and most foundational tool in truth evaluation.
OCBM asks only one question:
Do the category-structures permit this relationship?
To answer, it examines six ontological criteria.If any one of these fail, the proposition fails.
This produces a binary output:
This is the same logic as physics:
Ontology precedes modelling.Ontology precedes logic.
A relational claim is admissible only if all six criteria are met. This is the clearest and most formal articulation to date:
The relata must be distinct enough to be meaningfully related.
A statement collapses if:
Example of collapse:
To falsify these, one must collapse categories —which reveals they were invalid, not false.
The cause must contain enough structure, capacity, and power to produce the effect.
Examples of ontic insufficiency:
These are not false claims.They are ontologically impossible claims. OCBM exposes their impossibility before logic ever touches them.
The relata must inhabit commensurate levels of organisation. Invalid cross-level assertions include:
Example:
“Brain states cause personal identity.”
This violates structural-level alignment.
A relational claim is admissible only if:
If boundaries must be eroded or blurred to make the claim work,then the proposition is invalid. This is also where falsifiability is diagnostic:
If refuting a proposition requires redefining its categories,it was not falsifiable — therefore not a relational statement.
This clarification is new and essential.
For X to cause Y,Y must be in the same domain or a nested subdomain of X.
This is why:
are admissible.
But:
are not.
Containment must exist.
The modal status of each relatum must make the relationship possible:
Modal incoherence is fatal.
Example:
“Chance creates complexity.”
Chance lacks the modal capacity to create anything.
This is the decisive distinction:
A claim is admissible only if it is possible within the ontological structure of reality.Truth evaluation comes after.
Thus:
In this sense, OCBM is the gateway tool. Everything else is downstream.
Most contemporary claims fail OCBM before the conversation even begins.
Examples:
These are not “philosophical disagreements.” They are ontological impossibilities. OCBM simply reveals it.
Logic operates on forms. OCBM operates on reality. Because logic cannot detect:
it cannot be the first tool. If the categories are wrong, logic will faithfully amplify a delusion. This is why ideologies feel rational — even when false.
Claim: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
OCBM detects:
Thus the statement is not false.It is invalid.
Everything that seems intellectually powerful in the claim is only surface plausibility — semblance.
Although this essay focuses on establishing the Ontological Category-Boundary Method (OCBM) in its formal structure, one of its most powerful applications—the identification of causal limits and relational breakpoints—is demonstrated separately in a dedicated sub-appendix.
In that extended analysis, the OCBM tool is used to resolve one of the most challenging pivot-pairs in classical literature (Proverbs 26:4–5), showing precisely where and why a relational instruction reverses truth-value at a boundary.This standalone treatment is provided in a pop-up box to preserve the flow of the main essay while still illustrating the tool’s full explanatory force.
Readers who wish to see how OCBM determines the exact limits of causality, delineates pivot thresholds, and resolves apparent contradictions through strict boundary analysis may open the sub-appendix by clicking on the button below.
The Ontological Category-Boundary Method does the following:
Identifies whether the relata are real or contrived.
Tests whether they can meaningfully relate.
Rejects all category-invalid propositions outright.
Prevents logic or rhetoric from lending them false credibility.
Establishes the boundary conditions under which truth may be evaluated.
It is the indispensable first step.
Having established the ontological boundary conditions under which any relation can meaningfully exist, we now turn to the symmetrical opposite problem: what happens when those boundary conditions fail, yet an appearance of relationship still presents itself?
OCBM determines whether reality permits the relation at all. RSD exposes what the mind and discourse construct when reality does not.
Where OCBM identifies ontological possibility, RSD identifies ontological vacancy misperceived as structure. This marks the shift from evaluating real relations to diagnosing the illusion of relation — the semblance that takes the shape of coherence even when no ontological grounding is present.
RSD (next section) determines what to do with propositions that pass OCBM but still may be deceptive.
Diagnosing Illusions of Relationship When No Relationship Exists
Once a proposition passes OCBM, we can meaningfully ask whether the relation is genuine. But if a proposition fails OCBM, then:
RSD exists solely to diagnose those illusions. RSD never upgrades illusions to truth; it only classifies the type of illusion when OCBM has already ruled the relation non-causative.
This must be stated with total clarity:
Semblance is not a weak form of causation.
Semblance is what the mind constructs in place of causation when no real relation exists.
The strongest possible output of semblance is correlation(which has zero causal force). Semblance is the cognitive, linguistic, and rhetorical scaffolding that gives an appearance of connection where ontology denies one.
RSD does not evaluate truth.RSD does not validate relations.RSD never establishes causation.
Instead, RSD identifies which illusion of relationship is occurring when a proposition:
RSD is therefore:
Every semblance falls into one of four non-relational illusion types.
These are not pathways to causation.They are cognitive substitutes for causation.
Two things appear connected because they occur near each other.
Examples:
These are correlations at best.Correlation = zero entailment. Epistemic status: Non-relational. Pure semblance.
A part is mistaken for the wholeor the whole is misapplied to a part.
This is how reductionism and collectivism generate false causal narratives.
Examples:
These statements sound relational but violate ontic sufficiency and agent category boundaries. Epistemic status: Non-relational.
A cognitive shortcut mistaken for causation.
Similarity in one dimension is mistaken for equivalence in all dimensions.
Examples:
Analogy is valuable for learning, but catastrophic when mistaken for identity. Epistemic status: Non-relational.
Only a conceptual resemblance.
A dramatic reversal creates the impression of a profound connection.
Examples:
Inversion simulates depth by exploiting contrast. Epistemic status: Non-relational. Rhetorical—not ontological.
Here is the unambiguous core principle:
Semblance can never, under any circumstances, generate causation. It produces only the appearance of relation, not relation itself.
This must be taken as axiomatic.
Why?
Because:
Semblance is cognitive ornamentation on top of ontological nothingness.
Logic does not validate semblance; logic only manipulates semblance.
Therefore, logic applied to semblance produces the illusion of validity without truth.
Logic:
This is why:
Nothing is “valid” in these systems—it is only coherent illusion amplified by logic.
The sequence of analysis is now:
If not → stop. No relation possible.RSD will simply reveal the illusion type.
genuine relation → proceed to logic
semblance → treat with epistemic suspicion
correlation → recognise as non-relational
Never applied as a truth-detector to semblance.
This prevents coherent illusions from masquerading as valid knowledge.
Claim:“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” OCBM already showed the claim is invalid. RSD therefore classifies the entire statement as semblant, not relational.
Specifically:
Thus the statement is not only invalid; the sense of validity is supplied entirely by semblance.
Relational Semblance Diagnostics provides:
The decisive insight:
Semblance does not weaken relation.Semblance replaces relation.
With both diagnostic instruments now established — OCBM for ontological admissibility and RSD for semblance/illusion detection — we are prepared to integrate them into a single evaluative architecture.
Taken individually, each tool identifies a different failure mode. Taken together, they restore the proper hierarchy of reasoning:ontology → semblance-elimination → logic.
The Integrated Pipeline shows how these tools interlock, ensuring that logical inference is never applied to ontologically impossible claims nor seduced by semblance masquerading as genuine relation. Section V therefore operationalizes the framework as a step-wise evaluative sequence that moves from possibility → discernment → reasoning.
From Ontological Possibility to Truth-Admissible Reasoning
The mind moves too quickly.It leaps from language → intuition → reasoning without ever checking whether the categories allow a relationship to exist at all.
The modern world exploits this haste.
To prevent illusion from masquerading as knowledge, the diagnostic order must be restored:
Ontology → Semblance Diagnostics → Logic
This is the correct pipeline. Reversing or skipping any step produces epistemic illusion rather than truth.
Is a Real Relationship Even Possible?
We begin with the most fundamental question:
Are the relata capable of relating in reality?
This requires checking:
If any condition fails:
This step eliminates 90% of modern statements before they ever reach reasoning.
Example: “Genes determine behaviour.”— fails ontology; cannot be reasoned about.
Example: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”— fails ontology; cannot be reasoned about.
OCBM isolates the possible from the impossible.
If a Relation Is Possible, What Kind of Apparent Relation Is It?
Some propositions pass OCBM — they are structurally possible.But they may still be rhetorically deceptive.
RSD identifies whether the perceived relationship is:
Crucially: A proposition may pass OCBM and still be non-relational in practice. Passing OCBM only means the structure could relate —not that it does relate. RSD filters out every echo of:
This step disarms false depth.
Example: “Anger leads to violence.” OCBM: possible; RSD: adjacency → correlation only (no causation can be assigned)
Example: “Fear is clarity.” OCBM: fails; RSD: inversion → pure illusion
Only Applied After Ontology and Semblance Are Cleared
Logic is never the first tool.
It is the final, conditional tool —engaged only when:
Only then can logic reliably:
Why so late?
Because logic cannot detect:
If applied too early, logic merely beautifies the illusion:
Logic does not validate semblance —logic only amplifies semblance’s coherence.
This is the root cause of entire intellectual systems that “feel rigorous” yet are ontologically impossible.
Demonstration with three representative cases.
“Matter produces consciousness.”
“Poverty causes crime.”
“Neglecting sleep impairs judgment.”
This triple test filters out illusion at every stage.
The pipeline prevents:
This is the single most powerful epistemic safeguard a mind can possess.
The pipeline enables:
It restores confidence in the possibility of reasoning because it restores reasoning to its proper order.
Ontology first. Semblance second. Logic last.
Although logic is the final step in the pipeline, it is not an abstract or informal process. The logical operations applied here are the classical ones:
Used to test the internal structure of propositions:
These operate only on propositional form.
Used when propositions include quantifiers and predicates:
These operations still evaluate form, not reality.
Determines whether a conclusion follows from premises in every model where the premises hold.
Entailment evaluates:
The Integrated Pipeline establishes:
OCBM — Truth can exist here.
RSD — This is the kind of relation present.
Logic — Now we may evaluate the relation internally.
Every step is necessary.Every step eliminates illusion.
This pipeline converts what the world treats as “debate”into a surgical evaluation of reality. The Pipeline now stands complete: OCBM establishes ontological possibility, RSD removes semblance and false relation, Logic operates only where reality has already been secured.
Section VI puts this evaluative order into practice. We apply the Pipeline across biology, psychology, politics, ethics, theology, science, and culture — not to demonstrate novelty, but to reveal how many dominant claims derive their persuasive force not from truth, but from the patterned illusions that arise when ontology is ignored.
This section therefore shows the framework diagnosing real-world discourse, exposing category error, semblance, and structural collapse across the major domains that shape modern thought.
How OCBM–RSD Exposes the Illusions That Shape Modern Thought
This section demonstrates the pipeline in action across multiple domains.It reveals how entire disciplines and cultural narratives derive their persuasive power not from truth but from semblant structures treated as ontological ones.
Each example follows the three-step diagnostic order:
OCBM — Is a real relation even possible?
RSD — If possible, is the relation genuine or semblant?
Logic — Only applied after (1) and (2).
This yields a level of clarity impossible under traditional logic or empirical heuristics.
OCBM: Fails due to:
RSD: Classifies this as:
Logic: Barred.
Verdict: Invalid proposition, dressed up as scientific insight.
OCBM: Fails Structural Agent Boundary (the brain is tissue, not a volitional subject).
RSD: Synecdoche + analogy (“the brain is like a computer”).
Logic: Barred.
Verdict: Non-relational illusion.
OCBM: Passes (both psychological constructs within same level). Relation possible.
RSD: Adjacency → correlation, not causation.
Logic: Disallowed.
Verdict: Non-relational resemblance mistaken for mechanism.
OCBM: Fails — identity is ontological; trauma is experiential.Level mismatch + category collapse.
RSD: Synecdoche (experience mistaken for essence).
Verdict: Invalid.
OCBM: Fails because “society” is not an agent.Category collapse + boundary erosion.
RSD: Synecdoche (“aggregate = agent”).
Verdict: Invalid, though rhetorically powerful.
OCBM: Fails — emotional category → economic outcome.Level mismatch + ontic insufficiency.
RSD: Adjacency (co-occurrence),Inversion (“humility weakens nations”).
Verdict: Invalid causal structure; only rhetorical semblance.
OCBM: Fails categorically:
physical → axiological
RSD: Analogy (“evolution selects for good behaviour”). Inversion (“selfishness is altruism”).
Verdict: Invalid. Entire discourse runs on semblance, not ontology.
OCBM: Fails — molecules cannot instantiate moral posture.
RSD: Synecdoche (chemical → person).Analogy (psychology as chemistry).
Verdict: Invalid proposition masquerading as science.
OCBM: Second clause fails OCBM — attribute ≠ subject. Ontic collapse + identity drift.
RSD: Inversion (predicate → subject).Synecdoche (part → whole).
Verdict: Structural fallacy exposed instantly.
OCBM: Fails — faith is relational trust; psychology is internal affect.Category error.
RSD: Adjacency (faith accompanied by emotion).Analogy (trust ≈ feeling).
Verdict: Invalid.
OCBM: Fails — material structures cannot instantiate semantic categories.
RSD: Inversion (“because large, therefore meaningless”).Analogy (cosmic scale ⇄ existential value).
Verdict: Category-invalid metaphysics wearing scientific language.
OCBM: Fails — modal incoherence (non-being → being).Ontic insufficiency.
RSD: Analogy (“chemical self-organisation = life”).Adjacency (lab simulations mistaken for origin).
Verdict: Invalid; the appearance of explanation is an illusion.
OCBM: Passes (agents influencing agents). Relation possible.
RSD: Mixed:
Logic: Disallowed until categories are de-aggregated.
Verdict: Partially relational but rhetorically distorted.
Claim: “Celebrities shape moral norms.”
OCBM: Passes (agents → agents).Possible.
RSD: Adjacency (visibility mistaken for moral authority).Synecdoche (public persona mistaken for lived character).
Verdict: Not causative; only influential correlation.
Across every domain, the pipeline exposes the same pattern:
Most modern claims fail OCBM outright.
Many that pass OCBM fail RSD, mistaking resemblance for relation.
Logic is almost never legitimately applicable.
Coherent illusions dominate public discourse.
The pipeline instantly collapses entire ideological structures.
This is why this toolset is not merely academic but civilisational.
Section VI demonstrates:
Section VII will consolidate the framework and articulate its epistemic, cultural, and metaphysical implications.
Sections VII and VIII form the evaluative and ethical horizon of the tool. The OCBM–RSD pipeline does far more than repair isolated arguments.It reveals a structural displacement in the way modern culture approaches truth.
Most people — including academics — treat reasoning as though it begins with:
But reasoning begins far earlier.
It begins with ontology — with the question:
Are the things being related capable of relating in reality?
This single shift carries transformative consequences for:
Section VII articulates these consequences.
Truth Begins Before Reason
Reasoning does not produce truth.Reasoning tests truth claims.
But truth claims are only testable if they first survive ontology.
Thus:
The pipeline restores this hierarchy. This overturns 2,500 years of philosophical error, from Aristotle’s propositional reductionism to Kant’s phenomenal bracketing to analytic philosophy’s fixation on form over being.
The insight is simple:
Logic is only true when applied to what is true in reality. Everything else is illusion shaped by grammar.
Reductionism Collapses Instantly
Almost every “explanation” in modern science attempts category jumps that OCBM prohibits:
OCBM shows these are not incorrect. They are impossible. RSD then reveals why they seemed persuasive:
Thus, the authority of scientism disappears without needing to refute empirical data. Ontology collapses the narrative before the debate even starts.
Cultural claims gain their power through semblance:
These are not insights.They are ontological impossibilities with rhetorical gravity. OCBM exposes their category errors; RSD reveals why they carry emotional weight. Their persuasive force evaporates.
Value Cannot Emerge from Non-Value
Modern ethics rests on the assumption that:
can “explain” or “produce” moral value.
OCBM reveals:
RSD then shows why these illusions felt compelling:synecdoche, adjacency, analogy, and inversion. This restores morality to its proper ontological footing.
Language Is the Primary Medium of Illusion
The primary engines of deception in modern discourse are:
OCBM and RSD neutralise these engines. The rhetoric remains, but the illusion dissolves.
Discernment Becomes Surgical, Not Emotional
Individuals equipped with this framework gain:
The mind is no longer deceived by:
Discernment becomes a tool, not a feeling.
Revealed Truth is the Only Truth Stable Enough for Reason
Once ontology is restored, epistemology follows, and logic takes its rightful place.
This hierarchy mirrors the biblical pattern:
Thus the OCBM–RSD pipeline does not merely repair epistemology; it reinstates the biblical structure of reality and reason.
Section VII consolidates the entire framework:
Truth is ontological — not logical, not empirical, not rhetorical.
OCBM tests the possibility of relation.
RSD diagnoses illusions of relation.
Logic can only refine what ontology already permits.
Modern culture mistakes semblance for causation.
The pipeline dissolves coherent illusion at its root.
A restored hierarchy of being → relation → reason reopens the path to truth.
From Consequence to Construction
The consequences of ontological diagnostics make clear why modern discourse collapses so easily:reason has been applied where ontology has not been secured, logic has been misapplied to semblance, and rhetoric has taken the place of reality.
Yet not all illusions are accidental. Some are deliberately manufactured. Section VIII therefore shifts from the passive illusions arising from structural error to the active engineering of semblance for persuasive, political, or ideological ends.
Here we expose how macro-category inflation, category smuggling, semantic weighting, and rhetorical adjacency manufacture the appearance of depth where no ontological grounding exists. What OCBM and RSD reveal as impossibility becomes, in this section, a study in how impossibility is disguised as coherence.
RSD reveals how semblance naturally arises in human cognition. But semblance is also deliberately constructed.
Manipulation occurs when:
Agents intentionally engineer semblance to mask ontological impossibility, allowing inadmissible claims to appear coherent and persuasive.
This is not psychology or rhetoric; it is onto-semiotic engineering.
The most common manipulative tactic is to create or invoke an artificial superordinate category that appears to contain incompatible kinds.
Examples:
These macro-categories do not exist as causal agents. They are syntactic shells that conceal category mismatch.
A second strategy is to insert a category covertly that allows an impossible relation to appear permissible.
Example:
Here:
RSD identifies the illusion.
Adjectives, adverbs, and evaluative nouns (“responsible,” “progressive,” “inclusive,” “ethical”) are used to forge the appearance of coherence where none exists.
RSD identifies this as cosmetic semblance.
This essay exposes the logic of manipulation, but it does not provide operational techniques for its execution.
Our purpose is:
Thus all examples are diagnostic, never procedural.
The Ontology–Category Boundary Model (OCBM) establishes a structural truth:
A proposition cannot be factual unless the kinds it references are capable of real relation.
This single insight reorders the entire architecture of reasoning:
Ontology first — OCBM: Are the referenced kinds capable of entering a real relation?
Semblance second — RSD: If not, what illusion creates the appearance of coherence?
Logic third: Only then can arguments be tested for validity.
Evidence fourth: Truth can be examined only within an ontologically admissible field.
Manipulation awareness: How rhetorical or ideological structures simulate coherence when relations are ontologically impossible.
This framework restores ontological grounding to discourse that has long operated without it. It explains why so many modern debates are irresolvable: the disagreements are not about facts, but about impossible relations mistakenly treated as factual claims.
Restore the ontological boundary, and truth becomes visible again.
A Complete OCBM → RSD → Manipulation Walkthrough (Sagan)
Carl Sagan popularised the slogan:
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
It has become a cultural axiom. Yet under ontological analysis, the statement has no structural content.
The proposition attempts to relate:
an aesthetic magnitude (“extraordinary”), to
an epistemic threshold (“requires more evidence”).
These categories cannot form a causal, normative, or logical relation.
Aesthetic descriptors do not determine evidential standards.
OCBM verdict: Ontologically impossible. The kinds cannot interact.
If the relation is impossible, why does the statement seem persuasive?
RSD reveals the semblances that provide false coherence:
Analogical Semblance: It borrows the proportionality of pragmatic reasoning (“bigger risks require more checks”), but this analogy has no ontic relevance to evidential thresholds.
Cosmetic Semblance: “Extraordinary” carries emotional weight, which the mind misreads as epistemic significance.
Typophoric Semblance: “Extraordinary evidence” introduces a category that does not exist in epistemology. Yet the naming simulates a type and therefore a structure.
Correlative Semblance: It implies a scaling function—“extraordinariness” supposedly increases evidentiary burden the way mass increases inertia. No such relation exists.
In practice, the slogan is applied selectively:
miracles → “extraordinary” → dismissed
Big Bang → extraordinary → accepted
abiogenesis → extraordinary → accepted
consciousness-from-matter → extraordinary → accepted
Thus the slogan functions not as an epistemic principle but as a rhetorical boundary.
It constructs a pseudo-standard that shields naturalistic claims while disqualifying theistic ones.
Result:
OCBM: impossible
RSD: coherent only via semblance
Manipulation: easily weaponised
Epistemology: contributes no real guidance
This example demonstrates why OCBM must precede all reasoning, and why RSD must diagnose the illusions that arise when ontological impossibilities are rhetorically stabilised.
What This Tool Actually Establishes
With OCBM and RSD in place, the reader stands in a very different landscape from where the essay began. What first appeared to be a technical clarification—how to evaluate whether propositions can even mean anything—reveals itself to be nothing less than a reordering of how truth must be approached if reasoning is to remain tethered to reality.
Only after the full analytic journey can we name plainly what this model establishes.
The discovery is simple but profound:
A proposition cannot be factual unless the kinds it references are capable of real relation in the structure of being.
This is not a linguistic rule or a logical constraint. It is a meta-foundational ontological requirement that has governed meaningful discourse implicitly, but has never been formally articulated.
Kant uncovered the conditions that make experience possible.OCBM uncovers the conditions that make factuality possible.
Logic presupposes admissibility.
Epistemology presupposes ontology.
Truth presupposes real relational capacity.
The hierarchy was always there; it merely lacked a name.
The inherited structure of reasoning has been:
propositions → logic → evidence → truth.
The correct sequence is:
Ontology: Are the kinds capable of relation?
Semblance: If not, what illusion simulates coherence?
Logic: Is the argument internally valid?
Evidence: Does reality confirm the admissible structure?
This is not a refinement; it is a structural reversal.It restores reality-first epistemics.
Modern discourse abounds with propositions that can never be true because the kinds they relate have no ontic capacity for relation:
“The universe prefers justice.”
“History rewards courage.”
“Hope drives economic outcomes.”
“Nature wants diversity.”
These are not merely imprecise. They are structurally impossible.
OCBM gives a name to what has remained unnamed:many debates cannot be resolved because the relations cannot exist.
This is not semantics. It is ontological surgery.
OCBM clarifies a pervasive epistemic error: correlation treated as proto-causation.
But correlation matters only when an ontic hinge exists between the kinds.
Without ontic capacity:
correlation cannot mature into fact,
cannot imply causation,
cannot become evidence.
This closes a long-standing loophole in the scientific method.
Popper’s principle—that scientific claims must be falsifiable—is secondary to a deeper truth:
A claim must be ontologically admissible before it can be falsifiable.
If the referenced kinds cannot relate, the claim cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot be scientific, philosophical, or meaningful.
This adds the missing ontological dimension to epistemology.
OCBM reveals impossibility; RSD reveals the illusion of possibility.
RSD diagnoses the mechanisms by which inadmissible propositions appear persuasive:
typophoric drift
analogical semblance
macro-category inflation
axiological coloration
narrative fusion
These explain both everyday confusion and advanced propaganda.
The model does not manipulate; it unmasks manipulation.
The deepest implication is this:
Facthood is not a property of statements.Facthood is a property of ontologically permissible relations.
A statement becomes factual only when:
the kinds can truly relate,
the logic is coherent,
the evidence corresponds.
Truth does not emerge from human reasoning.It begins in being, not in thought.
This recovers the forgotten order:
ontology → epistemology → logic → evidence.
If one sentence captures the entire model, it is this:
OCBM identifies the ontological preconditions for factuality; RSD diagnoses the illusions that arise when those preconditions are violated.
Everything else in the essay flows from this axiom.
In an age where discourse drifts away from reality, this model restores what modern thought abandoned:
the anchor of being.
The rest—philosophical, cultural, or theological—follows from that restoration.
