Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Hakob Barseghyan

36 months ago
Score 0

This modification comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions in our original theory. The current zeroth law was meant to highlight the fact that consistency and compatibility are not the same thing. While that is all well and good, we missed the fact that the law doesn't really say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of compatibility. I agree with the authors that the law as it currently stands lacks empirical content. I believe this modification as well as modification 2018-0018 provide a remedy.

The suggested definition of compatibility criteria is, I believe, acceptable as it captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community. It is also clear to me that the compatibility corollary follows from this definition.

In short my verdict is that the modification is to be accepted.

Paul Patton

35 months ago
Score 0
The authors argue convincingly that the Zeroth Law of scientific change is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility. A compatibility corollary follows from this definition and the observation that the elements of a mosaic co-exist at any one moment of time. Together these two elements recover the content of the Zeroth Law. The authors have argued that the compatibility corollary can replace the Zeroth law and recover the content of the rejection theorems. So far as I can tell, this modification seems reasonable and appropriate, and I believe it should be accepted.

Hakob Barseghyan

32 months ago
Score 0
Following a series of communal discussions, it is apparent that there is a communal consensus that the modification is to be accepted.

You are not allowed to post comments.