Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Hakob Barseghyan

32 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

31 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

28 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.

Tessa Ng

12 months ago
Score 0

The suggested modification proposes that compatibility is an epistemic stance agents can take towards elements in and outside of mosaics. A key qualifier of the suggested compatibility stance is that it is distinct. In addition to the existing epistemic stances of acceptance, use, pursuit, and employment, compatibility can be used to describe a particular unexplored relation between epistemic elements that the other stances cannot. Moreover, compatibility is a stance that may be taken in addition to/ combination with other stances. Lastly, the modification also suggests that compatibility is a binary, reflexive, and symmetric relation, which raises the question of whether there exist any cases that defy this qualifier.

A uniqueness of the suggested modification is that it proposes compatibility can be used to describe elements inside and not inside a mosaic. Unlike the existing epistemic stances, compatibility can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two. One questionable feature of compatibility is it is binary, which the author suggests as part of the modification. Although it is clear how compatibility can be a binary relation, it does not immediately appear to be the case that it must be a binary relation . Many elements are candidates for the compatibility test and can be compared to each other easily. For example, a belief C may only make sense in light of the combination of belief A and B, but not A alone or B alone.

In light of the benefits the suggested modification can offer the scientonomic community, my verdict is to accept the suggestion. Compatibility as an epistemic stance has the potential to describe unique new relationships and shed light on the complexity of relationships that can exist between epistemic elements.

You are not allowed to post comments.