Ameer Sarwar

Ameer Sarwar is a Canadian scientonomist notable for his work on compatibility and scientificity.

Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested by Sarwar:

• Sciento-2018-0013: Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept several questions concerning the definition of scientificity and the applicability of scientificity to other epistemic elements, such as methods and questions, as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2018-0014: Accept the law of theory demarcation as a new scientonomic axiom. Also accept questions concerning indicators of scientificity as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2018-0013 becomes accepted.
• Sciento-2018-0015: Accept the definition of compatibility, as the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also replace the zeroth law with the compatibility corollary. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 3 June 2020. 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"^c1 as it "is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility".^c2 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".^c3 It was also agreed that "the compatibility corollary follows from this definition".^{c4 c5} Finally, the community accepted that the definition and the corollary "recover the content of the Zeroth Law".^c6
• Sciento-2018-0016: Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 October 2021. The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",^c1 as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".^c2 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",^c3 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".^c4 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".^c5 Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.^c6
• Sciento-2018-0017: Accept the new definition of compatibility criteria as criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 11 October 2020. 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".^c1 Since "compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike"^c2 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".^c3
• Sciento-2018-0018: Accept the new dynamic law of compatibility which specifies how exactly two elements become to be considered compatible or incompatible within a mosaic. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 9 October 2021. It was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"^c1 as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"^c2 and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".^c3 The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".^c4 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?"^c5 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".^c6
• Sciento-2018-0019: Accept the new definition of theory acceptance which makes explicit that accepted theories are a subset of scientific theories. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2018-0020: Accept the demarcation-acceptance synchronism theorem. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar on 28 December 2018.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2018-0014 and Sciento-2018-0019 all become accepted.

Theories

The following table contains all the theories formulated by Sarwar:

Title	Type	Formulation	Formulated In
Scientificity Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	Descriptive	Scientificity is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of scientificity.	2018
The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	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.	2018
The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.	2018
The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	Descriptive	If a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain.	2018
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Scientificity (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	Descriptive	The stance of scientificity can be taken towards a theory.	2018
Theory Acceptance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Definition	An accepted theory is a scientific theory that is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object.	2018
The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018) is Not Tautological (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	Descriptive	The law of theory demarcation as formulated by Sarwar and Fraser in 2018 is not tautological.	2018
Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Definition	The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.	2018
Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1		The method rejection theorem is a deductive consequence of the compatibility corollary and the first law.	2018
Demarcation-Acceptance Synchronism (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	Every theory that becomes accepted satisfies the demarcation criteria employed at the time of acceptance.	2018
Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility.	2018
Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.	2018
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1		The theory rejection theorem is a deductive consequence of the compatibility corollary and the first law.	2018
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.	2018
Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Definition	Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.	2018
The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) is Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	Descriptive	Harder's zeroth law is tautological.	2018

Questions

Here are all the questions formulated by Sarwar:

• Associations of Scientificity: How is the class of scientificity associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between scientificitys, as well as between a scientificity and instances of other classes?
• Compatibility of Mosaic Elements: Are all elements within a mosaic compatible with one another?
• Disjointness of Scientificity: What other classes is the class of scientificity disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with scientificity?
• Existence of Scientificity: Does a scientificity exist?
• Indicators of Conclusiveness for Scientificity Assessment: What are the historical indicators that an assessment by the demarcation criteria was conclusive or inconclusive? Does the lack of agreement or evidence count in favor of inconclusive assessment outcome?
• Indicators of Theory Scientificity: What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a theory was indeed considered scientific/unscientific by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?
• Individual and Communal Levels: How is the communal mosaic related to the mosaics of the members of the community?
• Mechanism of Theory Demarcation: How do theories become scientific or unscientific?
• Normative Effects of Scientonomy: What are the normative effects of scientonomy on the process of scientific change?
• Scientificity: What is scientificity? How should it be defined?
• Scientificity of Methods: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards methods? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific methods?
• Scientificity of Questions: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards questions? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific questions?
• Subtypes of Scientificity: What are the subtypes of a scientificity?
• Supertypes of Scientificity: What are the supertypes of a scientificity?
• Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Demarcation and Acceptance: Is it the case that acceptance of a theory necessarily implies that the theory also satisfied the demarcation criteria employed at the time of acceptance?
• Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Is the law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 a tautology?
• Tautological Status of The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018): Is the law of theory demarcation as formulated by Sarwar and Fraser in 2018 a tautology?

Publications

Here are the works of Sarwar included in the bibliographic records of this encyclopedia:

• Friesen et al. (2023): Friesen, Izzy et al. (2023) Discussion of Suggested Modifications: Scientonomy Workshop, February 25, 2023. Scientonomy 5, D1-D32. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42265.
• Sarwar (2022): Sarwar, Ameer. (2022) General System-Theoretic Framework for Theories of Scientific Change. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 177-199.
• Palider et al. (2021): Palider, Kye et al. (2021) A Diagrammatic Notation for Visualizing Epistemic Entities and Relations. Scientonomy 4, 87-139. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37904.
• Fraser and Sarwar (2018): Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.
• Sarwar and Fraser (2018): Sarwar, Ameer and Fraser, Patrick. (2018) Scientificity and The Law of Theory Demarcation. Scientonomy 2, 55-66. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31275.

To add a bibliographic record by this author, enter the citation key below:

 

Citation keys normally include author names followed by the publication year in brackets. E.g. Aristotle (1984), Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (1935), Musgrave and Pigden (2016), Kuhn (1970a), Lakatos and Musgrave (Eds.) (1970). If a record with that citation key already exists, you will be sent to a form to edit that page.