Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Provide your comments regarding the suggested modification here. At minimum you need to indicate whether you think the modification is acceptable, why "yes" or why "no". The key question here is not whether the modification is flawless - no modification ever is. The key question is whether the modification, if accepted, will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge.

Please follow the instructions in the guidelines for readers.

Hakob Barseghyan

19 months ago
Score 0
I agree with Fraser and Sarwar that if we accept the existence of a certain type of criteria, we should also accept the respective stance. Since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria - and this strikes me as unproblematic - then we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility. Thus, I fully support this modification and believe that we should accept it.

Paul Patton

19 months ago
Score 0
At first blush, one might think that there is no need to differentiate compatibility from acceptance, since the compatibility corollary already requires that elements of the mosaic be compatible with one another. However, Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic. Compatibility is therefore a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance. I support the modification, and believe it should be accepted.

Ameer Sarwar

15 months ago
Score 0
I agree with both reasons that (1) the existence of compatibility criteria suggests the existence of the stance of compatibility, and that (2) this stance is in principle different from the other stances. I therefore also agree that this modification should be accepted.

You are not allowed to post comments.