38
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Theory Type=Definition
Mutual Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016) (view source)
Revision as of 08:42, 3 March 2017
, 08:42, 3 March 2017no edit summary
{{Theory
|Theory Type=Definition
|Topic=Mutual Authority Delegation
|Formulation Text=Communities A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to community B, and community B delegates authority over topic ''y'' to community A.
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard, Mirka Loiselle,
|Formulated Year=2016
|Description=Mutual authority delegation is a sub-type of authority delegationThis definition arose to describe the mutualistic relationship that exists between two communities, usually under an overarching community. It describes was first inspired as a situation where two one-way interaction by observing the interaction between the art market and the art expert communities delegate authority ; how the former relies on the latter to define their mosaic. A brief explanation of this example is as follows: when the art market has to one another over respective areas decide whether a piece of art is authentic, they turn towards the art experts for their evaluation. Based on the authentication method of the art experts, the art market subsequently changes their beliefs on the piece of expertiseart accordingly. A good In this example , the art market’s method of authentication is directly dependent, or delegated to, the art experts. Although they may share different interests and intents, the art market community acknowledges that the art experts possess the most knowledge and skills pertaining to this domain, thus initiating in a relationship of mutual authority delegation.Mutual authority delegation is essentially the same relationship between physicists but bidirectional. Overgaard and biologists nowadaysLoiselle illustrates the mutualistic relationship that compatible scientific disciplines share as sub-communities. A community of For example, physicists recognizes acknowledge that biologists are the experts in the of life sciences , and will accept any theories told to them about the life sciences by biologists. Likewise, a community of likewise biologists recognizes acknowledge that physicists are the experts in the of physical sciences and . Consequently, they will accept any the theories told to them about in each other’s domains into their own mosaics insofar as they were evaluated and accepted by the respective experts. This relationship is also present within a scientific discipline. Looking at the physical sciences by relationship between theoretical and applied physicists, we know that despite the differences in their methods and overall objectives, they don’t discredit the works and findings of one and other, but work inter-dependently as sub-communities of the physics community. The exchange This relationship between two communities can allow elucidation of authority a larger over physical -arching community, and life sciences puts physicists the elements of this community’s mosaic. Furthermore, understanding this relationship allows us to examine the exchange of mosaic elements between two communities through a new lens, benefitting both observational and biologists theoretical scientonomists in a relation of mutual authority delegationreconstructing mosaics and describing scientific change.
|Resource=Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)
|Prehistory=Émile Durkheim was a French sociologist that examined the idea of the division of labor in a society in his On the Division of Social Labor (1893), where he introduced the concepts of mechanical and organic solidarity in a society.[[CiteRef::Carls (2016)]] Durkheim observed that in advanced societies, there exists a solidarity – a set of “laws” – between its members, referring to the representations of organization that underpins social life.[[CiteRef::Jones (1986)|pp.24-59]] These laws can be repressive (punitive) or restitutive (civil). The former is sanctioned based on what Durkheim called the “conscience collective”, which is the unison of individual beliefs common amongst members of the society. It represents what actions are in the society’s best interest, and are shared in an identical manner across all individuals as a set of repressive laws that individuals feel morally bound by. This is what Durkheim called mechanical solidarity, and is what he regards as a more primitive state of society.
On the other hand, organic solidarity is more akin to mutual authority delegation in that, individuals belong to ‘specialised parties’ within society and that restitutive laws are in place to establish and enforce contractual, cooperative relationships between two distinct parties.[[CiteRef::Jones (1986)|pp.24-59]] This cooperative relationship is the result of the division of labor in a society, and it is precisely the individual differences people have that bind the society together as a functional unit. Furthermore, an organic society has a collective understanding of the world, which Durkheim referred to as représentations collectives – the equivalent of a mosaic in scientonomic terms.[[CiteRef::Carls (2016)]] Durkheim argues that a society operates under a common language despite differences in individual sensory perceptions. It is the fusion of the individual perceptions of reality that come together to form a “new and irreducible” conglomeration of ideas. As such, society structures, and limits the extent of, the individual’s perception of reality.
|History=The definition of Mutual Authority Delegation was first proposed by Nicholas Overgaard and Mirka Loiselle in 2016, and was accepted from Jan 21, 2017 by the scientonomic community. It remains as the current accepted definition.
}}
