Outcome Not Satisfied
How should the theory assessment outcome not satisfied 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 "not satisfied".
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton in 2017. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states "The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||5 February 2017||That's when Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate.||Yes|
|Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)||The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.||2017|
|Community||Theory||Accepted From||Accepted Until|
|Scientonomy||Outcome Not Satisfied (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 community, the accepted definition of the term is Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017). It is defined as: "The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time."
To say that a theory's assessment by a method produced the outcome "not satisfied" is the same as to say that the theory conclusively failed to meet the requirements of the method. Read More