From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.

The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 This modification presupposes the acceptance of Sciento-2017-0004. The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017.


It says in The Laws of Scientific Change that the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly follows from the definition of employed method.2p. 129, footnote However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.2pp. 205-207 The reformulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the new formulation of the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.1


Theories To Accept

Questions Answered

This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):


The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.

Click on the Discussion tab for comments.


  1. a b  Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from
  2. a b  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.