Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]]. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0012|suggested modification]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0003|respective modification]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
The publication of [[Patton (2019)]] is and indication of the acceptance of the question. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The question was raised by Barseghyan in his original formulation of scientonomy [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 99-109]], although he was unable to supply a normative answer. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 109-113]] and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. +
The community has accepted an answer to this question, Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant facts Barseghyan 2015, and this implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of the question itself. +
The law became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
Associations of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Acceptance Criteria]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]]. +
Associations of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
Associations of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Associations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
Associations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Associations of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Descriptive Theory]]. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC. +
Associations of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline Acceptance]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
Associations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Associations of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Agent]]. The publication of [[Barseghyan (2018)]] is an indication of the acceptance of the term. +
Associations of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Element]]. The term [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]] has been ''de facto'' accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset. +
Associations of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''Question Dynamics'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
Associations of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Associations of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Global Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
Associations of Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Implicit]]. The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Individual Epistemic Agent]]. This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
Associations of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Action Availability]]. This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Logical Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''Question Dynamics'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
Associations of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method Hierarchy]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
Associations of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method]]. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, [[Method (Barseghyan-2015)]], became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate. +
Associations of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Associations of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Associations of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Associations of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Norm Employment]]. The question became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|acceptance]] of [[Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)|the first definition of the term]]. +
Associations of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Normative Theory]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
Associations of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Acceptance]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change]] that offered a definition of ''question acceptance'' was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
Associations of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change]] that offered a definition of ''question'' was published. This is a good indication that the question of how ''question'' is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
Associations of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Scientific Mosaic]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
Associations of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Acceptance]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the term itself became accepted. +
