Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.

Paul Patton

17 months ago
Score 0
While I support the eventual acceptance of this definition, I believe it is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; 'epistemic agent', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy. I will be proposing a definition of 'epistemic agent' in association with a paper currently under review. If this definition, or some other satisfactory definition of 'epistemic agent' is accepted by the community, then I believe that this definition of 'Scientific Mosaic' is otherwise suitable for acceptance. It rectifies some important flaws in the earlier definition of 'Scientific Mosaic'.

Hakob Barseghyan

10 months ago
Score 0
While I agree that a proper definition of epistemic agent is to be actively pursued, I don't think that a lack of such definition is to be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of scientific mosaic. After all, it is inevitable in any system of definition to have term which rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms. No matter how complex the system of definitions is, it must eventually use some undefined terms, unless of course it uses fundamental terms that are cross-defined, i.e. where x is used to define y, while y is used to define x. So I do not find it advisable to consider the absence of a certain definition as an obstacle for accepting some other definition.

Paul Patton

5 months ago
Score 0
Since I wrote my original comment, I have proposed a definition of epistemic agent, which is now under consideration for acceptance. I think we do have sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scientific mosaic, even without first accepting a definition of epistemic agent. That being the case, I drop my objection and support the acceptance of this definition.

William Rawleigh

one month ago
Score 0
I think that regardless of whether is accepted that this modification should be accepted. The fact is that the community has been referring to 'epistemic agents' for some time now, and it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic - propositions don't exist in a vacuum, after all. We've already accepted the revised question-theory ontology on the basis of de facto acceptance so I don't see any reason this should be different. I support accepting this modification.

You are not allowed to post comments.