Difference between revisions of "Test"
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- | -->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- | ||
-->|?Theory<!-- | -->|?Theory<!-- | ||
+ | -->|?Formulation Text<!-- | ||
-->|mainlabel=-<!-- | -->|mainlabel=-<!-- | ||
-->|headers=hide<!-- | -->|headers=hide<!-- | ||
Line 8: | Line 9: | ||
-->|order=asc, asc<!-- | -->|order=asc, asc<!-- | ||
-->|format=template<!-- | -->|format=template<!-- | ||
− | -->|template= | + | -->|template=CurrentAnswerPageNameAndFormulation-ul-format<!-- |
-->|named args=yes<!-- | -->|named args=yes<!-- | ||
-->|link=none<!-- | -->|link=none<!-- |
Revision as of 20:55, 26 February 2023
- Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change.
- Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018) and Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): The subtypes of epistemic agent are epistemic community and individual epistemic agent.
- Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018), Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018), Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) and Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015): The subtypes of epistemic element are explicit, implicit, question and theory.
- Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018), Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018), Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) and Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015): The subtypes of epistemic stance are compatibility, norm employment, question acceptance, theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use.
- The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
- The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015): An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
- The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015): An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
- Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
- Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
- Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.
- Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018): Explicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of explicit.
- Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.
- The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015): Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.
- Epistemic Community Exists: There is such a thing as an epistemic community.
- Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.
- Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015): Theory is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory.
- Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015) and Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.
- Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): A theory is said to be a logical presupposition of a question, iff the theory is logically entailed by any direct answer to the question.
- Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.
- Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018): Norm Employment is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.
- Handling Ripple Effects - Editorial House Keeping (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019): The encyclopedia editors should be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. If the additional required changes are implicit in the suggested modification, the editors should create and alter encyclopedia pages to ensure that the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge is properly documented; if it is conceivable to accept the modification without accepting the ripple effect change in question, the editors should register these changes as new suggested modifications so that the community can discuss and evaluate them in an orderly fashion.
- Indicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015): Indicators of theory acceptance are textual sources that represent the position of a scientific community regarding a theory at some time. Useful indicators are contextual to time and culture. They might include such things as encyclopedias, textbooks, university curricula, and minutes of association meetings.
- Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019) and Theory Answers Question (Rawleigh-2018): A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
- Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
- Question Acceptance Exists: There is such a thing as question acceptance.
- Group (Overgaard-2017): Two or more people who share any characteristic.
- 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.
- Mutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A.
- Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018): A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.
- Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018): Definition is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of definition.
- Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015): When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
- One-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.
- Community (Overgaard-2017): A group that has a collective intentionality.
- Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018): Implicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of implicit.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Questions - Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018): The stance of question acceptance can be taken towards a question.
- Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015): Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible.
- Community Can Delegate Authority to Another Community (Loiselle-Overgaard-2016): A community can delegate authority to another community.
- Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015): It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.
- Question Exists: There is such a thing as a question.
- Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.
- Logical Presupposition Exists: There is such a thing as a logical presupposition.
- Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy does not postulate the existence of a universal and unchanging method of science; thus the fact that methods of science are changeable is not detrimental to the prospects of scientonomy.
- Social Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.
- Normative Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something.
- Descriptive Theory Exists: There is such a thing as a descriptive theory.
- Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.
- Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.
- Pursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015): Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.
- Epistemic Agent Exists: There is such a thing as an epistemic agent.
- Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015): The employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.
- Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015): Theory Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance.
- Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.
- Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.
- Error (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021): An epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method.
- Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility.
- Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015): The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence.
- Multiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agent.
- Definition (Barseghyan-2018): A statement of the meaning of a term.
- Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015): Theory Use is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use.
- Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.
- Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019): The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017): A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
- Normative Theory Exists: There is such a thing as a normative theory.
- Error Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021): The handling of instances of scientific error is consistent with the theory rejection theorem; it involves a replacement of an erroneously accepted theory either with a first- or second-order proposition.
- Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015): Theory Pursuit is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit.
- Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018): A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry.
- Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018): Epistemic Community is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community.
- Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
- Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.
- Method (Barseghyan-2018): A set of criteria for theory evaluation.
- Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018): Question is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of question.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.
- Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.
- Theory Acceptance Exists: There is such a thing as theory acceptance.
- Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015): The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.
- Definition Exists: There is such a thing as a definition.
- Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): A theory is said to be an epistemic presupposition of a question for some agent, iff the agent accepts that accepting any direct answer to the question will necessitate accepting the theory.
- Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.
- Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.
- Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017): A group that does not have a collective intentionality.
- Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015): Descriptive Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of descriptive theory.
- Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015): If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change.
- History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.
- Descriptive Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to describe something.
- Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016): Normative Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of normative theory.
- Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Not explicit.
- Publishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019): The discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections.
- Response to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015): Science can be said to be socially constructed in several different senses (e.g. the contingency, nominalist, and reducibility theses). None of these preclude the possibility of scientonomy.
- Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018): Question Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of question acceptance.
- Technological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018): Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.
- Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018): Method is a subtype of Normative Theory, i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method.
- Singular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent.
- Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018), Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015) and Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016): The subtypes of theory are definition, descriptive theory and normative theory.
- Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015): At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
- Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.
- Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so.
- Theory Exists: There is such a thing as a theory.
- The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) is Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Harder's zeroth law is tautological.
- Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
- Community Exists: There is such a thing as a community.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories - Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): The stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Epistemic Presupposition Exists: There is such a thing as an epistemic presupposition.
- Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.
- Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.
- Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
- Individual Epistemic Agent Exists: There is such a thing as an individual epistemic agent.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.
- Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018): A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent.
- Question (Rawleigh-2018): A topic of inquiry.
- Epistemic Stance Exists: There is such a thing as an epistemic stance.
- Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.
- Allow Modification Reformulations (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019): The commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations in the comments. By default, the new formulation should bear the original author’s name, unless the author decides to give credit to those who significantly contributed to the new reformulation.
- Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015): Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
- Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): Individual Epistemic Agent is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of individual epistemic agent.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.
- Epistemic Element Exists: There is such a thing as an epistemic element.
- Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.
- Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016): The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from all accepted theories, but only from some.
- Methodology (Barseghyan-2018): A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.
- Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.
- Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019) and Theory Answers Question (Rawleigh-2018): A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
- Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015): If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.
- Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.
- Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions.
- Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018): Method is a subtype of Normative Theory, i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method.
- The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
- The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
- The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
- The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015): An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
- The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015): An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
- The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
- Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
- Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
- Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
- Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
- Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017): A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015): When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
- Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016): Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
- documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
- scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
- publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
- evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
- Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015): When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories - Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): The stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory.
- Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015): At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
- Technological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018): Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
- Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018) and Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): The subtypes of epistemic agent are epistemic community and individual epistemic agent.
- Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015), Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) and Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018): The subtypes of epistemic element are explicit, implicit, question and theory.
- Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015), Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018), Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018), Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018), Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) and Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015): The subtypes of epistemic stance are compatibility, norm employment, question acceptance, theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use.
- The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
- The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015): An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
- The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
- Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
- Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.
- Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015): Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017): A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
- Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015): Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.
- Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015): It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.
- Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
- Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015) and Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.
- Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015): Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible.
- Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015): If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.
- Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
- Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015): At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
- Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015): When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
- Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
- Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015): Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.
- Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015): A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.
Current answers to Epistemic Stances Towards Theories are: The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
Current answers to Epistemic Stances Towards Questions are: The stance of question acceptance can be taken towards a question.
Current answers to Mechanism of Mosaic Split are: When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
Template:SetTopicHasAcceptedAnswer Temp
In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question are The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016), The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015).
---
Heritable Questions of Descriptive Theory:
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Descriptive Theories
The question has no accepted answer.
Necessary Descriptive Theories
The question has no accepted answer.
Subsumes items of Epistemic Stance: Compatibility, Epistemic Stance, Norm Employment, Question Acceptance, Theory Acceptance, Theory Pursuit, Theory Use
Questions of subsumes items of Epistemic Stance: Mechanism of Norm Employment, Mechanism of Question Acceptance, Mechanism of Theory Acceptance
Children Array: Question, Theory, Explicit and Implicit
---
Question, Theory, Explicit, Implicit
Question, Theory, Explicit and Implicit
Subsumes Items of Epistemic Element: Definition, Descriptive Theory, Epistemic Element, Explicit, Implicit, Method, Normative Theory, Question, Theory
Descendant Items of Epistemic Element: Definition, Descriptive Theory, Explicit, Implicit, Method, Normative Theory, Question, Theory
Ancestor Items of Method: Epistemic Element, Normative Theory, Theory
Subsumed Items of Method: Epistemic Element, Method, Normative Theory, Theory
Answers to the subquestions of Epistemic Element:
Epistemic Stances
This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>.
This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text.
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements
What epistemic elements can the stance of theory acceptance be taken towards?
Epistemic Stances
varTemp: Some text and some other text.
AnASLow: a method
AnASLow: a some word
AnASLow: an empty word
AnASCap: a Method
AnASCap: a Some word
AnASCap: an Empty word
SCap: Method
SLow: method
PCap: Epsitemic Stances, Methods, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Some other terms and Random texts
PLow: epistemic elements, methods, theories, instances of theory acceptance, some other terms and random texts
The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy:
- The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory.
- On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.
The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy. The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory. On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.
Hello World!
Formulated Year | Authors List | Child | Disjoint Group | Disjoint Group Order | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) | 2015 | Hakob Barseghyan | Method | Main | 1 |
Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) | 2018 | William Rawleigh | Question | Main | 1 |
Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) | 2015 | Hakob Barseghyan | Theory | Main | 1 |
Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) | 2018 | Maxim Mirkin | Explicit | explicitness | 2 |
Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) | 2018 | Maxim Mirkin | Implicit | explicitness | 2 |
Main,explicitness
Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015), Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) and Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)
Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)
There are several options here: One, Two, Three and Four.
There is only one option: One There are no options.
Like demarcation and acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria can be part of an epistemic agent's employed method. An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements (e.g. methods, theories, questions) are mutually compatible or incompatible, i.e. whether they can be simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it (e.g. scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). Fraser and Sarwar point out that Barseghyan's original definition of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".p. 72 To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".p. 72
Different communities can have different compatibility criteria. While some communities may opt to employ the logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of compatibility, other communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. According to Barseghyan, the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a good indication that the actual criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".p. 11 For example, this is apparent in the case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective domains (i.e. they are considered compatible), but are known to be in conflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.
Hello world
This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."
This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."
|
|
|