Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017

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

Sort by date Sort by score

Enable comment auto-refresher

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Hakob Barseghyan

56 months ago

Score 0

Since compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types, we need a better definition that the one we currently accept. Fraser and Sarwar's definition, I believe, is a great improvement over the current one.

My position is that the modification is to be accepted.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Ameer Sarwar

52 months ago

Score 0

This modification claims that compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike. The previous definition claimed that this stance could be taken only towards theories. But we now recognize that this may hold between theories-theories, theories-methods, theories-questions, methods-methods, methods-questions, and questions-questions. The use of the term "elements" captures all of these possibilities. It is also neutral to the the addition of new epistemic elements to the scientonomic ontology.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Ameer Sarwar

52 months ago

Score 0

Therefore, my suggestion is that the modification should be accepted.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Hakob Barseghyan

48 months ago

Score 0

Since the modification tries to fix an obvious drawback of my original definition, it is not surprising that it hasn't raised any objections. We can consider the matter settled.

Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.