List of Open Questions

Seminar 2016

TODO: These questions should be incorporated in their respective articles.

• What makes methods and methodologies that are inconsistent, compatible? For example, why do we think that the HD method and inductivist methodologies are compatible?
• Has our criteria of compatibility, which accepts inconsistencies, become vacuous or trivial? (Jennifer Whyte)
• What is the relationship between methods and technical research tools? Are there tools that are used independently from any method? (Paul Patton)
• What is the relationship between individuals and mosaics? Can an individual ever be considered the bearer of a mosaic? (Kevin Zheng) Two possibilities: either the definition of “community” is reformulated to allow for a community to be comprised of only one person, or we change the definition of “mosaic” to include the possibility that an individual can bear a mosaic. (Hakob Barseghyan)
• How do we define the term “law”? Hakob currently loosely defines “law” as “a regularity that applies to everything in your given ontology”. Is this acceptable? This seems to differ from current usage (for example, the fact that evolutionary biology explains regularities but is not considered a law). Is that a problem? (Paul Patton)
• If something like evolutionary biology has predictive power in virtue of explaining past regularities, does this imply that the TSC, which also explains past regularities, does or should as well? (Paul Patton)
• Are there in fact philosophical communities, or is there always too much disagreement? Are these disagreements the result of acceptance criteria which are too strict, or too vague? (Jennifer Whyte, Hakob Barseghyan)
• Choice of relevant facts is guided by our theories. Is this the case for our choice of relevant questions/problems? How do questions/problems become relevant? (Nick Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan)
• In what circumstances can the views of an individual scientist be indicative of the views of their community? (Jacob MacKinnon, Joshua Payne Smith)