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."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||28 December 2018||The 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|
|Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)||Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.||2018|
|Community||Theory||Accepted From||Accepted Until|
|Scientonomy||Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)||1 September 2019|
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2018-0011||Scientonomy||28 December 2018||Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.||Accepted||The 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."c2||1 September 2019|
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.
There is currently no accepted view concerning the existence of inexplicables.
No classes are currently accepted as being disjoint with this class.
No classes are currently accepted as subtypes of an inexplicable.
No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of an inexplicable.
No associations of an inexplicable are currently accepted.
If a question concerning the ontology of an inexplicable is missing, please add it here.
If a question concerning the dynamics of an inexplicable is missing, please add it here.
- Barseghyan, Hakob and Mirkin, Maxim. (2019) The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change. In Héder and Nádasi (Eds.) (2019), 5-17.