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 term was first used by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton in 2017. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:

• The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record of the Term

Here is the complete acceptance record of this term (it includes all the instances when the term was accepted as a part of a community's taxonomy):

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

All Definitions

The following definitions of outcome not satisfied the term have been suggested:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
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

If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Definitions

The following definitions of outcome not satisfied have been accepted:

Community	Theory	Formulation	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	29 November 2017

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning the definitions of outcome not satisfied:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
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.	29 November 2017	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

Current Definition

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).

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."

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.

Ontology

Subtypes

No classes are currently accepted as subtypes of outcome not satisfied.

Supertypes

No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of outcome not satisfied.

Disjointness

No classes are currently accepted as being disjoint with this class.

If a question concerning the ontology of outcome not satisfied is missing, please add it here.

Dynamics

If a question concerning the dynamics of outcome not satisfied is missing, please add it here.