A Failed Ontology: The Linear No-threshold Model of Radiogenic Cancer

A debate within radiation protection science has been building over many years regarding whether low-dose, ionizing radiation (LDIR, in the range of 0 200 mGy) is known to be a carcinogen (1). That debate now approaches a fever pitch, and the time is ripe to assess what is known and how it is known to determine where truth must lie. A philosophy developed over centuries that applies to such an investigation, termed the philosophy of knowledge, or the philosophy of science (or scientific knowledge) as a subset (see, for example, the discussion by Wenning (2)), is useful in this debate. Within this philosophy, an ontology (and, specifically, a science ontology) may be simply defined as what we know in some particular niche or entity of science-space. But "knowing" in science requires strong foundations, and knowledge has been refined over the centuries to mean a 'justified, true belief.' Such a belief may be knowledge only under three conditions: it is certain; we believe it is true; and we have empirical justification to believe it. Stated differently, scientific knowledge arises when: we accept an objective reality; postulated rules govern that reality; and those rules may be demonstrated by empirical evidence. The empirical evidence supporting that belief or rule is called the epistemology how we know the belief or rule is true and epistemology for science must make use of reason constrained by verification through experimentation and observation. Putative facts deriving from misinformation and/or opinion can never be scientific knowledge.