Difference between revisions of "Modification:Sciento-2017-0005"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Date Suggested Day=5 | |Date Suggested Day=5 | ||
|Date Suggested Approximate=No | |Date Suggested Approximate=No | ||
| − | |Authors List= | + | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Nicholas Overgaard, Paul Patton |
|Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) | |Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) | ||
| − | |Preamble=It says in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] that the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly follows from the definition of ''employed method''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 205-207]] The reformulation of the law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted. | + | |Preamble=It says in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] that the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly follows from the definition of ''employed method''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 205-207]] [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|The reformulation of the second law]] suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the new formulation of the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] |
| − | |To Accept=The Second Law | + | |Modification= |
| − | + | |To Accept=The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | |
| − | |Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2017-0004 | + | |Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2017-0004 |
| + | |Automatic=No | ||
|Verdict=Accepted | |Verdict=Accepted | ||
|Date Assessed Year=2017 | |Date Assessed Year=2017 | ||
| Line 19: | Line 20: | ||
|Date Assessed Approximate=No | |Date Assessed Approximate=No | ||
|Verdict Rationale=The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|the new formulation of the second law]] suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is ''not'' a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification. | |Verdict Rationale=The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|the new formulation of the second law]] suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is ''not'' a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification. | ||
| + | |Superseded By= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:55, 19 January 2023
Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.
The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 This modification presupposes the acceptance of Sciento-2017-0004. The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017.
Preamble
It says in The Laws of Scientific Change that the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly follows from the definition of employed method.2p. 129, footnote However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.2pp. 205-207 The reformulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the new formulation of the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.1
Modification
Theories To Accept
- The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.
Questions Answered
This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):
- Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): Is the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?
Verdict
The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.
Click on the Discussion tab for comments.
References
- a b Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.
- a b Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
