Property:Verdict Rationale
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
The values of this property are to be stored by converting all instances of CiteRef:: to CITE_. E.g.:
{{#set: Verdict Rationale={{#replace:{{{Verdict Rationale|}}}|CiteRef::|CITE_}}|}}
Make sure to make the opposite replacement when retrieving the value. E.g.
{{#replace: {{#show: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|?Verdict Rationale}}|CITE_|CiteRef::}}
This is done to make it transclusion of the text on other pages. When the texts were stored as is, a simple {{#show: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|?Verdict Rationale}} would fail to properly display the semantic citations. Instead of a super superscript [1] with bibliographic info, it would show something like (Barseghyan (2015)).
M
Initially, the modification raised an objection from [[Paul Patton|Patton]] who argued that the modification "is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; ''epistemic agent'', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-97|c1]]</sup> This objection received two counterarguments. According to [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]], the lack of such a definition of ''epistemic agent'' should not "be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of ''scientific mosaic''", since inevitably any taxonomy contains terms that "rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-111|c2]]</sup> This point was seconded by [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]] who argued that the definition of ''scientific mosaic'' is to be accepted regardless of whether there is an accepted definition of ''epistemic agent'', since "it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-132|c3]]</sup> In early 2020, Patton dropped his objection as he found that there was "sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scientific mosaic, even without first accepting a definition of epistemic agent".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-128|c4]]</sup> Additionally, Rawleigh argued that the definition is to be accepted since we have "already accepted the revised question-theory ontology".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-132|c5]]</sup> +
The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0010#comment-109|c1]]</sup> It was agreed that this modification is to be accepted, as it "opens the way for any epistemic stance or element to be either implicit or explicit, with the arbiter for any given case being empirical evidence".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0010#comment-99|c2]]</sup> +
The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0011#comment-101|c1]]</sup> It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between ''explicable-implicit'' and ''inexplicable'' and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning ''implicit'' and ''explicit''."<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0011#comment-108|c2]]</sup> +
After a series of mostly off-line discussions, it has been agreed that the modification is to be accepted. It was agreed that "Mirkin's discussion of potential counterarguments [are] convincing".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0012#comment-91|c1]]</sup> The consensus is that "Mirkin presents arguments that technological knowledge, like scientific knowledge, can be accepted and not just used, and argues that there are no good prior reasons to suppose that technological knowledge would not be explicable using established scientonomic laws or patterns of change".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0012#comment-102|c2]]</sup> There seem to be "no ''prima facie'' reasons why changes in technological knowledge should not obey the same patterns of scientific change",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0012#comment-116|c3]]</sup> especially given that fact that "there is considerable overlap between science and technology, as when an instrument is used to acquire scientific data, and the trustworthiness of this data must be assessed".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0012#comment-102|c4]]</sup> +
The modification can only become accepted once modification [[:Modification:Sciento-2018-0013|Sciento-2018-0013]] becomes accepted. +
While the modification induced a few comments on the encyclopedia, it became accepted as a result of discussions that took place mostly offline. It was agreed that the modification "comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions" in the current zeroth which doesn't "say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of ''compatibility''"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-113|c1]]</sup> as it "is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-130|c2]]</sup> It was also noted that the proposed "definition of compatibility criteria... captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-113|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that "the compatibility corollary follows from this definition".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-113|c4]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-130|c5]]</sup> Finally, the community accepted that the definition and the corollary "recover the content of the Zeroth Law".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0015#comment-130|c6]]</sup> +
The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-131|c1]]</sup> as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c2]]</sup> The reviewers agreed that "Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-131|c3]]</sup> since it "can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c4]]</sup> It was also argued that "since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria... we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-124|c5]]</sup> Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c6]]</sup> +
The discussions concerning this modification took place mostly online, but primarily outside of this encyclopedia. There is a communal agreement that the modification is to be accepted as it fixes "an obvious drawback of [Barseghyan's] original definition".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0017#comment-154|c1]]</sup> Since "compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0017#comment-138|c2]]</sup> it is agreed that we need a definition that is applicable to all epistemic elements, not merely theories. It was also noted that the new definition has the advantage of being "neutral to the the addition of new epistemic elements to the scientonomic ontology".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0017#comment-138|c3]]</sup> +
It was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-115|c1]]</sup> as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c2]]</sup> and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-178|c3]]</sup> The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-115|c4]]</sup> While finding the law acceptable, one of the commentators raised an important question for future scientonomic research: do we even need a separate law of compatibility? Specifically they asked: "Is assessment for compatibility with other elements of the mosaic really conceptually distinct from the process of assessment for theory acceptance, which is already covered by other scientonomic laws?"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c5]]</sup> On this view, "the issue of the conceptual separability of theory compatibility and theory acceptance, and thus the need for two parallel laws, remains an open question that warrants further investigation".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c6]]</sup> +
The modification can only become accepted once modifications [[:Modification:Sciento-2018-0014|Sciento-2018-0014]] and [[:Modification:Sciento-2018-0019|Sciento-2018-0019]] all become accepted. +
The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. The modification was summarized by Paul Patton as essentially a ratification of current scientonomic practice. Jamie Shaw raised some concerns about how we don’t have adequately defined norms that must be satisfied for pursuitworthiness, which may make this modification trivial. Discussion about how peer-reviewers’ notions of pursuitworthiness may veer close to acceptability ensued. Nevertheless, the modification passed with 83% of the votes to accept (10/12). +
The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. Much of the discussions on this modification concerned the actual format of the “special commentary articles” and “special edited collections” suggested as options for publications would be. Paul Patton suggested micro-papers that could accompany each modification (one discussion paper per modification), whereas Izzy Friesen, Rebecca Muscant, and G. G. Shan were supportive of unified papers in a “compilation” format (one discussion paper per workshop). The possibility of doing both concurrently was floated by Spenser Borrie. Concerns about the commentary articles/edited collections waned once it was clarified that subheadings would be present in any compilation paper, ensuring that modifications and their authors would receive adequate attention. Establishing a clear schedule and framework for such a compilation was of great importance to all attendees at the meeting, and additionally, Hakob Barseghyan suggested a special numbering system for these publications to separate them from peer-reviewed articles. It was also agreed that the first author of such a paper would be whoever was in charge of taking notes, with all other commentators listed as co-authors. The modification was accepted almost unanimously. +
The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. It was noted that the idea is compatible with other consensus systems where one is allowed to modify the proposal in order to reach consensus. The modification sparked important discussion about our iterative process. Paul Patton highlighted a potential problem with our workflow where, by the time we are discussing acceptance, the paper has already been formatted and published. He raised a question if it might be more advisable to use a two-stage process, where a paper is first posted in some preliminary form and then, following the debate on acceptance, it is reformulated as needed and the final version is considered published. Hakob Barseghyan responded that there always has to be a chance of commenting on something published post factum. Instead of the two-step process, he suggested allowing small alterations to modifications after the publication and publishing the commentaries to modifications in a separate article (as the community just accepted with modification 2019-0002), while leaving the original article intact. Greg Rupik also suggested the potential for a special designation for a tweaked modification identifier (e.g. 2019-0003a instead of 2019-0003) to make it more apparent which modifications were reformulated. Barseghyan responded that the wiki is well-suited to make reformulations apparent (most specifically, in the Preamble and Verdict sections) without the need to multiply modifications. He also emphasized that this modification pertains to smaller reformulations and not to significant changes to the content, making some concerns about the modification less immediately relevant. Barseghyan also addressed the question posted prior to the workshop by Ameer Sarwar: when other authors cite a modification that has been altered, what exactly should they cite? Barseghyan suggested that, since both the original modification and the altered one will be published, one can cite both. The modification was accepted unanimously.
At the 2023 workshop, this modification was met with concerns from the community. Firstly, the question of the equitability of star ratings was highlighted by Rebecca Muscant and Izzy Friesen. Amirali Atrli also wondered whether the problem of incentives becomes further stretched out by the five-star scale. Kye Palider noted that the up-or-down arrow that we already have on our Wiki seems simpler and more democratic than star-ranking. Alessandra Castino also mentioned that on online forums, the basis of their rating systems can discourage new commenters, and that we might see this here too. Some rating systems are also better than others – it was suggested by Joshua Allen, for example, that StackExchange’s system could provide a good model, as it incentivizes participation. Friesen highlighted that larger forums where rating systems for commentary are popular include anonymity by default, which makes this kind of recognition important, but this is not so much of an issue in the scientonomy community. Palider suggested simply listing a user’s number of comments but, as Castino emphasized, such ratings might not reflect the quality of the comments. Jamie Shaw noted that this need not necessarily be an issue since all participation grades are almost inevitably subjective and don’t necessarily reflect the quality. Deivide Garcia suggested that more thoughts needs to be put into this before any of the suggestions could be implemented. Barseghyan agreed and noted that the mediawiki platform has limitations on what can be done here, so it is unclear which of the new suggestions could be possibly implemented. Ultimately, though, the modification was rejected. +
The decision was made during the 2023 workshop. Hakob Barseghyan emphasized that this modification does not grant permission to alter the body of scientonomic knowledge but simply to ensure that the pages of the encyclopedia reflect the actual state of scientonomic knowledge and that the scientonomic knowledge is stored in the most appropriate manner. Among other things, this is to handle the so-called ripple effect. Barseghyan mentioned that, while working on the encyclopedia with Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen, they had discovered several instances of ripple effect that resulted from our human lack of omniscience (e.g. a theory was supposed to be listed under Theories to Accept of a modification but wasn’t; a theory was actually accepted by the community but there was no record of it in the encyclopedia, etc.). Hence, according to Barseghyan, it would make sense to grant the editors the necessary right to adjust the respective pages to handle its consequences. Deivide Garcia wondered how such very small modifications can be tracked. Barseghyan responded that the changes in question are not meant to concern the body of scientonomic knowledge (thus, these are not modifications in the standard scientonomic sense), but are only to ensure that the encyclopedia reflects the current state of scientonomic knowledge and organizes that knowledge efficiently. Kye Palider highlighted the issue of transparency: how will the community be notified about such changes? Barseghyan suggested that an annual housekeeping paper is to be published in the Scientonomy journal as a collective report on changes to the encyclopedia. The modification was accepted. +
Prior to the 2023 workshop, Ameer Sarwar argued against the modification. First, he noted that voting is not an appropriate mechanism in science where the goal is to unearth truth.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0007#comment-152|c1]]</sup> Second, it is unclear how we can ensure informed voting given that some members of the community could be inactive for several years. He thus suggested that we should keep this modification open and wait until after the resolution of modifications [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0002|2019-0002]] and [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0003|2019-0003]] that suggest alternative ways to increase participation. During the workshop, the modification was generally well received. Before voting, there was some concern about our voting process – who can vote and when can they vote? – voiced by Josh Allen and Paul Patton. Additionally, Deivide Garcia and Amirali Atrli raised concerns about who are “allowed” to function as part of the scientonomy community. Patton also suggested introducing quorum in addition to the 2/3rds stipulation to avoid potential modifications to the scientonomic body of knowledge introduced by a small number of participants. Gregory Rupik along with Jamie Shaw indicated that while quorum makes perfect sense for larger decision-making bodies, our capacity to vote should not hinge on who is absent, but rather on who is present. It was also determined that even though there is always a risk of a small group of people making big changes, or with people being unsatisfied with a modification they were not allowed to vote on, the iterative nature of our process ensures that there are easy solutions here; in addition, as Spenser summarized, most people in academic environments can be trusted to self-police. Rupik also highlighted the need to formalize the acceptance mechanism in the encyclopedia explicitly: i.e. without 3 comments with unanimity, the modification will be discussed at a workshop, and it is possible that it will remain open after the workshop, in which case we will wait until the next workshop to further discuss and modify it. Notably, since this proposal represents an attempt to formalize a voting system and closure mechanism, and itself was not subject to a specific voting system, it was decided by those present that we would accept this modification with a minimum of 2/3rds assent. The modification was accepted with overwhelming support.
It has been agreed that the idea of accepting a modification by default after a fixed time period might have several negative consequences. First, it may lead to the automatic acceptance of an otherwise unacceptable modification that just happened to be suggested at a time when most researchers interested in the topic were exceptionally busy.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-153|c1]]</sup> It was emphasized that if we were to allow for modifications to become accepted simply "because no one said anything" we would be giving "undue power to the mechanism of what gets accepted".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-153|c2]]</sup> This might "allow some modifications to garner more discussion than others depending on when they are published and lead to an incorrect understanding of the Scientonomic community’s evaluation of a particular modification", so we might end up with a mosaic that is not representative of the communal views.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-195|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that acceptance by default fails to address the concern that some members of the community may be reluctant to object to a modification for a variety of reasons. It is unlikely that “having time limits, even if they are apparent and made known within our community, will incentivize explicit objection”.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-195|c4]]</sup> It was suggested that "researchers may be even more reluctant to “impede the modification’s acceptance” now that it would be an automatic process”.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-195|c5]]</sup> Finally, it was mentioned that "the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0008#comment-197|c6]]</sup>
The modification was characterized as "a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology" for despite all the talks of epistemic agents "the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear" for years,<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-112|c1]]</sup> for its "strict explication has been lacking".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-133|c2]]</sup> It was agreed that the definition is an important starting point for our discussions concerning individual and communal agents.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-112|c3]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-133|c4]]</sup> It was also noted that the definition is important for addressing the "the question of agency of epistemic tools"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-112|c5]]</sup> and the question of "the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0014#comment-133|c6]]</sup> +
It was agreed during seminar discussions that the "modification aims to codify our ''de facto'' communal stance towards the ontology of epistemic agents".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0015#comment-191|c1]]</sup> This is confirmed by the fact that several recent articles take this ontology of epistemic agents for granted (e.g., [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)]], [[Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)]]).[[CITE_Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)]][[CITE_Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)]] Even as early as 2017, several of Loiselle's examples of authority delegation concern individual experts (see [[Loiselle (2017)]]).[[CITE_Loiselle (2017)]] +
The commentators found the modification uncontroversial.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0017#comment-190|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0017#comment-192|c2]]</sup> It was noted that the modification "merely attempts to capture what is already de facto accepted - namely, the idea that authority can be delegated by and to epistemic agents of all kinds (both communal and individual)" as indicated by the "fact that the canonical examples of authority delegation often involve individual experts (see, for example, Loiselle 2017)".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0017#comment-192|c3]]</sup> It was agreed that the modification "introduces a necessary rewording in the definitions of authority delegation and its species".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0017#comment-192|c4]]</sup> +
