This paper examines a structural problem in academic knowledge production: pres-tigious frameworks often achieve influence not through logical correctness but throughmeasurement basis dominance. Using observer-actualization theory, we show that aframework can be logically flawed yet intellectually dominant, while a logically superiorframework may remain obscure.We analyze how this occurs through three levels of evidence: scientific paradigmshifts (historical), contemporary academic cases (recent), and structural patterns (on-going). However, we acknowledge that our own evidence may suffer from survivorbias: we observe only visible, successful cases. We argue that understanding this dis-tinction is essential for evaluating academic claims, while remaining humble about thelimitations of our analysis.This paper does not critique individual scholars but rather exposes a systematic in-stitutional feature: the potential decoupling of correctness from influence in knowledgeproduction.
Da Wei (Fri,) studied this question.