Is this hypothesis rational? Why?

Rationality requires several prerequisites: the hypothesis must not be contradictory, must be analysed objectively and must follow logic. The discussion must not be influenced by personal feelings or emotions, and must be free of subjective bias. The content must also be reasonable, coherent and justifiable.

It will become clear to anyone who studies the hypothesis that it is free of major, important or relevant contradictions. In fact, it is formulated in such a way that it is compatible with (or not contradictory to) almost all existing theories and concepts of ageing, as well as the majority of existing scientific facts.

The discussion follows a logical, objective structure: there is a discussion of the issue in general, the discussion of the individual ideas and concepts, and why these concepts must be correct (according to certain views). It then offers ways to study the issue, followed by practical suggestions for achieving a discrete goal. Although the discussion is relatively free from subjective bias, those who are keen to criticise the discourse may claim the presence of emotional elements in places. This is normal, as emotion is an indispensable faculty of humans. As long as the degree of emotion remains as near to the idealised type of rationality, it will suffice in human terms.

Finally, the hypothesis is coherent and justifiable (presented in a logical stepwise manner, explaining and justifying several hitherto unclear issues related to life extension, death and ageing). Scientifically, it is also falsifiable, as the arguments, experiments and suggestions for further research, as well as the concept at large, are open to falsification by counter-argument, experiment and adverse reasoning, all of which could possibly be proven correct. It is open to anyone who feels must offer counterarguments to contradict this hypothesis, and subsequently support their arguments both with reason and supportive evidence. The hypothesis is also open to refutation (the presence of mistakes in the theory, or in the central point of the theory, and subsequent explanation why these are wrong). In any case, the concept is open to informed discussion and it can be modified or refined based on this discussion.

Let's assume that the hypothesis is rational, but this does not mean it is also correct.

It is true that rationality does not necessarily imply correctness. However, it is possible to compute the maximum probability that a rational model can be correct. According to J. Andrew Rogers this probability will be of the form: 0 < x < predictive limit < 1 where "x" is the actual probability that a rational model is correct within a certain context, and the predictive limit is the maximum theoretical probability that a model might be correct in that context.

Thus, it is proposed that ELPIs adheres to the basic requirements of a scientific hypothesis:

1. Testability (several opportunities for falsification) 

2. Parsimony (although speculative at times, it contains a minimal number of assumptions)

3. Scope (applies to multiple phenomena)

4. Fruitfulness (has practical applicability and may explain other related  phenomena)

5. Conservatism (it fits within current accepted knowledge)