Inexplicable

What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?

In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in 2018. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:

• Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.

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	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

All Definitions

The following definitions of inexplicable the term have been suggested:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated 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 Definitions

The following definitions of inexplicable have been accepted:

Community	Theory	Formulation	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)	Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.	1 September 2019

Suggested Modifications

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

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2018-0011	Scientonomy	28 December 2018	Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.	1 September 2019	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

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

Subtypes

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

Supertypes

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

• Implicit

Disjointness

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

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

Dynamics

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