Inexplicable

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. It is defined as: "Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions."

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

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):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy28 December 2018The publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.Yes

All Theories

The following definitions of the term have been suggested:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.2018
If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following definitions of the term have been accepted:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyInexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)1 September 2019

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this term:
ModificationCommunityDate SuggestedSummaryVerdictVerdict RationaleDate Assessed
Sciento-2018-0011Scientonomy28 December 2018Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.AcceptedThe consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."c21 September 2019

Current Definition

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018).

Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) states: "Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions." The category is agent-relative and encompasses that knowledge which cannot - even in principle - be explicated. The definition was first suggested by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in their The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change1 and was restated by Mirkin in his The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic.

Ontology

Existence

There is currently no accepted view concerning the existence of inexplicables.

Disjointness

No classes are currently accepted as being disjoint with this class.

Subtypes

No classes are currently accepted as subtypes of an inexplicable.

Supertypes

No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of an inexplicable.

Associations

No associations of an inexplicable are currently accepted.


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

Dynamics

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

References

  1. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob and Mirkin, Maxim. (2019) The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change. In Héder and Nádasi (Eds.) (2019), 5-17.