Compatibility

What is compatibility? How should it be defined?

The notion of compatibility plays a central role in scientonomy. As such, providing it with a proper definition is a matter of considerable importance.

In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan and Rory Harder in 2015. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:

• The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record of the Term

Here is the complete acceptance record of this term (it includes all the instances when the term was accepted as a part of a community's taxonomy):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 January 2016	The term became accepted with the acceptance of the whole theory of scientific change.	Yes

All Definitions

The following definitions of compatibility the term have been suggested:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.	2018

If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Definitions

The following definitions of compatibility have been accepted:

Community	Theory	Formulation	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.	3 June 2020

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning the definitions of compatibility:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2018-0015	Scientonomy	28 December 2018	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.	3 June 2020	Accepted	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

Current Definition

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018).

Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic."

This definition of compatibility captures the main gist of the notion as it was originally intended by Harder and Barseghyan - the idea that two elements are compatible when they can coexist within the same mosaic.

Ontology

Existence

In Scientonomy, it is currently accepted that "There is such a thing as compatibility."

Subtypes

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted subtypes of Compatibility.

Supertypes

In Scientonomy, the following supertype of Compatibility is currently accepted:

• Epistemic Stance

Associations

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted associations of Compatibility.

Disjointness

In Scientonomy, no classes are currently accepted as disjoint with Compatibility.

If a question concerning the ontology of compatibility is missing, please add it here.

Dynamics

If a question concerning the dynamics of compatibility is missing, please add it here.