Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0010

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.

Sort by date Sort by score

Enable comment auto-refresher

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Izzy Friesen

18 months ago

Score 0

Having read “Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology,“ I see no issues with the definitions proposed by Palider and I think they constitute an important addition which will prove useful in further scientonomic research.

In fact, it is because they have already seen use in scientonomic scholarship that, in the absence of any dissent from the community, it seems key to accept these definitions. Namely, the specific formulations of “reason” and “sufficient reason” provide much of the basis for the argument in “Error Handling” by Machado-Marquez and Patton that “the handling of scientific error […] is compatible with the theory rejection theorem” (2021, p.38). That proposed modification (2021-0004) has already been accepted, but its rationale rests on Palider’s as yet unaccepted definitions. Indeed, Patton and Machado-Marquez write that “all cases under consideration in this paper can be explained by assuming that the respective agents employed similar compatibility criteria that rendered the proposition incompatible with the proposition ‘There is no sufficient reason for accepting A’” (p.28). That the cases considered in the paper depend on such a concept of sufficient reason, the paper’s proposed modifications have been accepted, and yet a definition of “sufficient reason” has not been accepted, this is concerning to me! Accepting this modification would solve that problem. (I additionally think that perhaps the link between the proposed modifications could be made more explicit between this and 2021-0003/4, but I am not sure if this is necessary or useful, especially at this point.)

Verdict: Accept

Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.