Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0009

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.


Izzy Friesen

19 months ago
Score 0

I would be more comfortable accepting this modification if the boundaries on “logic” as put forth in Palider (2019) are better reflected in this definition itself. In Palider (2019), “logical” is defined as simply something “rule-governed” (Palider, 20). However, it is then stated that this notion of logic is a purely alethic one (20). The concept of an agent’s “rules of implication,” which would need to be accepted by that agent appears several times later in the paper without a definition (20). Neither of these concepts seem clearly reflected in this definition of implication. Thus, I feel that the definition, although useful, may not be acceptable in its current state.

I think that this lack of clarity regarding what is “logical” here, although I understand the author’s reasoning for not yet committing to a strict definition, means that this definition needs specification or revision. For example, perhaps “rules of implication” need their own definition relative to what is “logical” for an agent who is generating new theories through the relation of implication. For example, does “logical” simply denote that one such rule of implication — some kind of theory — has been accepted, and thus the transition is rule-governed?

Could the definition simply be revised to state that implication depends on the “agent’s notion of implication, rather than some universal ahistorical notion of implication”? (Palider, 26). This might allow the definition to be accepted as is without a pressing need to establish the status of “rules of implication” yet, although I do think that this should be explored further (especially as they are also relevant to the other modifications put forth in Palider (2019)!).

That being said, even in its current state, the modification will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge as its acceptance is linked to Sciento-2019-0010 (as I am assuming that the arrows in the proposed definitions there specifically reflect this Scientonomic definition of implication). Thus I am conflicted on whether or not my objections are strong enough to necessitate rejection of this modification.

Verdict: unsure
Permalink

Izzy Friesen

18 months ago
Score 0
Clarifying that my verdict is to not accept the modification in its current state.
Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.

Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification_talk:Sciento-2019-0009&oldid=15273"