Architect is not commissioned to do research, but to design. At his/her best, the architect may look at some built environments in the name of precedent studies. Debate whether architect need to do research or could the designing be theory application is growing. This paper aims at introducing truism of the disciplinary model, which is implicitly used in architectural research but seldom openly studied in philosophy of architecture. The key question is, whether theories of architecture are vehicles which the basis of the truism, the analogy from natural sciences, entails and whether relativity can be excluded from applying to architectural reality, as it seems to be done presently. At its best, truism may bring life to the dusty ghosts of the past and at its worst, forms a vicious circle of implicit rules of interpretation, a conspiracy of proper attitude passionately governed by gurus and adherents. First, the disciplinary model is described and examples given to exemplify its role in history writing. Finally, we conclude with remarks on the implications of the discussed disciplinary model.