How should the theory assessment outcome inconclusive be defined?
As one of possible theory assessment outcomes, this outcome must be properly defined. Thus, what does it mean to say that a theory's assessment outcome was "inconclusive".
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. It is defined as: "It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 January 2016||That's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.||Yes|
|Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015)||An outcome of theory assessment which allows for the theory to be accepted but doesn't dictate so.||2015|
|Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)||It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.||2017|
|Community||Theory||Accepted From||Accepted Until|
|Scientonomy||Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015)||1 January 2016||29 November 2017|
|Scientonomy||Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)||29 November 2017|
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2017-0004||Scientonomy||5 February 2017||Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method.||Accepted||The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.c3||29 November 2017|
In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met."
To say that a theory's assessment by a method produced the outcome "inconclusive" is the same as to say that the community itself couldn't tell whether the requirements of the method were conclusively met.
There is currently no accepted view concerning the existence of outcome inconclusives.
No classes are currently accepted as being disjoint with this class.
No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of an outcome inconclusive.
No associations of an outcome inconclusive are currently accepted.
If a question concerning the ontology of an outcome inconclusive is missing, please add it here.
If a question concerning the dynamics of an outcome inconclusive is missing, please add it here.