Admissibility vs Truth in Scientific Explanation

Scientific explanations are typically assessed in terms of truth, correctness, or predictive adequacy. However, many failures in scientific practice arise not from falsehood, but from the continued use of otherwise correct models outside the conditions under which their application remains admissible. This paper distinguishes truth from admissibility, arguing that these concepts play logically distinct roles in scientific reasoning. Truth concerns whether a claim accurately describes a stabilised structure, whereas admissibility concerns whether further explanation, prediction, or application is permitted under prevailing constraints. By clarifying this distinction within a viability-first framework, the paper explains how breakdown can occur without error and highlights the importance of admissibility as a precondition for responsible scientific continuation.