Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 03:49, 22 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (Element decay, as characterized by Oh, involves the departure of an element from an agent’s mosaic in the absence of a re-assessment or rejection by the agent. Oh presents five case studies, which intuitively seem, at first blush, to be contenders for historical episodes in which the phenomenon of element decay has transpired. Oh justifies the use of three necessary indicators of theory decay - agent continuity, change from theory acceptance to unacceptance, and theory unacceptance without as...)
  • 04:21, 15 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (Far from limiting the agreed upon ‘scope’ of science to a more modern conception of what the discipline entails by deeming it to have originated in earnest around the time of the Enlightenment - a view modern scientists are often guilty of holding - scientonomy takes a broad, universal view of science. As Fatigati mentions, Barseghyan (2015) has previously discussed the challenge this approach poses for the observational side of scientonomy. As we look to understand scientific mosaics from fu...)
  • 01:51, 15 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (I do NOT agree that the scientonomic community should accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon. It seems counterintuitive to expect a given community to be responsible for making existential claims regarding phenomena which lie beyond their community’s scope. From this it follows that it is not the scientonomic community’s place to determine whether element decay exists, as it is beyond the scope of scientonomy. Especially given the limited set of i...)
  • 03:55, 8 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (It is clear that errors arise in science. They can put even prestigious journals like Nature in the position of needing to publish retractions, as the authors demonstrate with the ‘Pulsar Planet’ case, and can elude the broader scientific community for years, as seen with the ‘Piltdown Man’ case. Nonetheless, scientonomy currently lacks an accepted definition for ‘error’. The need to create one is made all the more clear and pressing when one attempts to address Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu’s op...)
  • 03:48, 8 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (Machado-Marques and Patton convincingly argue that a scientonomic explanation of scientific error and its handling need not run afoul of the theory rejection theorem, the possibility of which was concernedly put forth in an open question by Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu in 2018. The authors, to much success, apply their definition of error to work through four historical episodes and show how each of the rejected propositions is often replaced by another first-order proposition, usually a direct...)
  • 03:14, 8 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (The suggested modification proposes that a community can accept classical theories, such as the phenomenological claims of classical physics, as the best available descriptions of the phenomena they describe while acknowledging that the theories themselves may be outdated. Alliksaar engages the case study of the meteorological community, which relies on classical mechanics and classical thermodynamics as fundamental pillars of their theories about atmospheric phenomena. At the crux of this mo...)
  • 23:23, 7 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (I agree that the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem. These examples support the compatibility of these elements, not just within the theoretical scientonomy framework, but also within the actual practice of science.)
  • 23:17, 7 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (I agree that the handling of scientific error, as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with the theory rejection theorem. The theory rejection theorem states that a theory becomes rejected when another incompatible theory is accepted. A theory can be replaced by a first-order incompatible theory. A theory can also be replaced by a second-order proposition accounting for the lack of evidence for the previously accepted first-order proposition. Scientific error, as defined b...)
  • 20:08, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar have identified. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within t...)
  • 20:07, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #180 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
  • 15:48, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar identify. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within the...)
  • 15:46, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #179 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
  • 15:46, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar identify. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within the...)
  • 05:53, 5 October 2021 Kye Palider talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (I believe this modification should be accepted. It acknowledges that there are compatibility assessments done by epistemic agents, and knowledge of compatibility is not assumed for the agent, but is something arrived at by the agent. It also allows for compatibility assessments to change over time in the face of new information, e.g. figuring out there is a contradiction between two theories potentially long after they have been proposed. Overall, this new law of compatibility is a substantia...)
  • 03:46, 1 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0006 (The proposed modification seeks to answer the question of what may be inferred about a theory’s assessment outcome based on whether the theory was accepted, unaccepted, or the cause of a mosaic split. In light of the acceptance of modification 2017-0004 (reformulation of the second law), this suggested modification may be interpreted as a reasonable extension/ application of its predecessor. The suggested modification proposes an interesting and fruitful guide for investigating theory asses...)
  • 03:45, 1 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (The suggested modification proposes that compatibility is an epistemic stance agents can take towards elements in and outside of mosaics. A key qualifier of the suggested compatibility stance is that it is distinct. In addition to the existing epistemic stances of acceptance, use, pursuit, and employment, compatibility can be used to describe a particular unexplored relation between epistemic elements that the other stances cannot. Moreover, compatibility is a stance that may be taken in add...)
  • 00:46, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Though I agree with you that error should always be relative to an epistemic agent and their employed methods -- and that the proposed notion of error is distinct from absolute error -- I do wonder whether further distinction, accounting for instances of honest error and misconduct, would further improve our understanding of these shifts in theory acceptance.)
  • 00:32, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (I agree that we should accept the definition of error, stating that an epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method. One of the main goals of observational scientonomy is to develop a Tree of Knowledge providing comprehensive documentation of individual mosaics and their changes through time. In order to do this effectively, we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accep...)
  • 17:21, 24 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #172 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012
  • 05:43, 24 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (In his paper, Alliksaar argues for the acceptance of a distinction between theories’ ontological and phenomenological claims, which could be used to more precisely determine whether or not a theory is (or has been) accepted. I do indeed think this distinction has the potential to serve observational scientonomy. However, I remain skeptical of the interpretation put forth on meteorology’s acceptance of classical theories, even if that acceptance is taken to be purely phenomenological. Alliksa...)
  • 05:40, 24 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (In his paper, Alliksaar argues for the acceptance of a distinction between theories’ ontological and phenomenological claims, which could be used to more precisely determine whether or not a theory is (or has been) accepted. I do indeed think this distinction has the potential to serve observational scientonomy. However, I remain skeptical of the interpretation put forth on meteorology’s acceptance of classical theories, even if that acceptance is taken to be purely phenomenological. Alliksaa...)
  • 00:39, 24 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0002 (I agree that we should accept the law of question acceptance. For in order to practically accept, pursue, or employ theories answering questions, we must be able to demarcate those questions which are acceptable. For purposes of mapping belief systems, not only do we need to be able to accept questions without incurring combinatorially explosive/restrictive issues of presupposition, but we need a law of question acceptance which pragmatically restricts the set of all possibly acceptable quest...)
  • 23:40, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification looks to lay the foundation for a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. This is an important area to develop as current scientonomic understanding of the matter is indeed lacking. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in scientonomy would make the acceptance of scientificity as an epistemic stance premature at this juncture. The three stances accepted in scientonomy - acceptance, use, and pursuit - are...)
  • 23:34, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. Since, however, the discussion over whether or not to accept scien...)
  • 21:21, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification proposes that scientificity is an epistemic stance agents can take towards theories. Inherent in the suggestion is that the stance can be taken at any time and in any context towards a theory. Moreover, the modification raises several prudent questions to be accepted, namely what scientificity is and whether it is a stance that can be taken towards methods and questions, as well as theories. At first glance, the modification appears simple and useful for evaluatin...)
  • 03:19, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 02:59, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (The suggested modification proposes a further qualification of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities. Assuming the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted and the existence of sub-communities is also accepted, the modification puts forward that epistemic communities can constitute a non-epistemic community, or at least be a sub-group within the larger non-epistemic group. In light of the pertinent example of Google, it seems immedia...)
  • 18:19, 22 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #161 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #162 on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #164 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013
  • 11:52, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #163 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • 18:59, 19 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 15:56, 18 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in s...)
  • 03:11, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
  • 03:08, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 00:03, 17 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0001 (I agree that the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition should be accepted. The role of presupposition acceptance necessary to subsequent question acceptance -- as outlined by the law of question acceptance -- diverges from the notion of “supposition” central to the analysis of argument structures in logic. Whereas a question may only be accepted if all its epistemic presuppositions are accepted, an argument could very well be deemed logically valid without the ac...)
  • 19:52, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (The historical cases discussed by Patton and Machado-Marques show convincingly that instances of scientific error handling are in full accord with ''the theory rejection theorem'', currently accepted in scientonomy. Specifically, they show that the rejection of an erroneously accepted theory is a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories. I fully agree with their treatment of scientific error. My verdict: '''accept'''.)
  • 19:45, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Historians and philosophers customarily speak of scientific errors, yet the notion itself still has no accepted scientonomic definition. Building on the earlier unpublished essay by Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu, Patton and Machado-Marques suggest a definition of ''Error'' that fills in this gap. The definition, I believe, succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method. As such, this not...)
  • 18:38, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (Given the seemingly numerous historical cases of lost and rediscovered knowledge, it seems as though some accepted theories and questions sometimes stop being accepted without any deliberation on the agent's part. This is what the author calls ''element decay''. Therefore, it is important to inquire whether such a decay of theories and questions actually takes place in the process of scientific change. I believe, the author does an excellent job showing that locating actual instances of eleme...)
  • 18:23, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0006 (A scientonomic account of the notion of ''discipline'' was long overdue. The question of how the notion of ''discipline'' (and, consequently, ''discipline acceptance'' and ''discipline rejection'') can be cashed out in terms of more basic epistemic elements, such as theories and questions, has been raised several years ago. Yet, despite numerous discussions on the subject, this is the first published scientonomic paper to provide such an account. The paper suggests a number of definitions tha...)
  • 15:04, 11 October 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (Following a series of discussions (mostly outside of this encyclopedia page), it seems that there are no objections to this modification. Thus, we can consider the matter settled.)
  • 14:37, 11 October 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Since the modification tries to fix an obvious drawback of my original definition, it is not surprising that it hasn't raised any objections. We can consider the matter settled.)
  • 02:51, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (This is the other modification that I am uncomfortable with, and my reasons here are quite similar to those I cited for rejecting 2019-0007. Let me raise another problem here, though: say we have a modification that gets accepted after rigorous debate, and everyone thinks that it is excellent. Now, after a few months, a new paper suggests a modification that proposes to replace the former. Assume that at this time the members of the scientonomic community are exceptionally busy and no one bot...)
  • 02:43, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0007 (This is one of two modifications that I am most uncomfortable with. The point of science in my view is to unearth truth. Voting is an inappropriate way of doing so. As a practical matter, though, I can see that we need to stimulate discussion, have a way of deciding on what should be accepted, etc. So what I will say below addresses some of these worries. We need to keep in mind who votes and how many people vote. It was suggested in the paper that everyone gets the chance to vote. Though I...)
  • 02:29, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and add a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite...)
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #150 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and a a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite t...)
  • 02:26, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0006 (This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I suggest accepting this modification.)
  • 02:25, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0005 (We should accept this modification, though this should not come at the expense of modification 2019-0002.)
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)