Model-independence itself lacks principled justification: why should solutions discovered via different formalisms carry more evidential weight than solutions solving real-world problems better?

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Evidential weight(in discussions about justification and reasoning): How much a piece of evidence should count toward proving or disproving something—whether it's strong proof or weak proof.
Formalism/Formalisms(as used in philosophy of science and mathematics): Different systematic mathematical or logical frameworks—like different languages or rule-systems—used to describe or solve problems.
Model-independence(as used in philosophy of computation): The quality of a conclusion being true or valid regardless of which method or framework you use to arrive at it; like getting the same answer whether you use different calculators.
Principled justification(What the statement says Scotus lacks when he stops the regress at two points): A reason for believing something that is based on a clear rule or logical foundation, rather than just asserting it's true without explanation.

Based on where you are in your exploration