Changes

|Preamble=[[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)|The current initial formulation of the second law]] is flawed since it does not specify the causal relations between the outcomes of theory assessment and the actual acceptance/unacceptance of a theory; it merely tells us that a theory was assessed by the method employed at the time. This is problematic as it doesn't say what happens to a theory when a certain assessment outcome obtains. Moreover, the deductions of several theorems assume a more specific formulation of the law, in which causal connections between assessment outcomes and theory acceptance/unacceptance are clearly stated.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)|pp. 30-32]] In particular, the deductions of the necessary and possible mosaic split theorems assume that the second law provides a clear account of the conditions under which theories become accepted or remain unaccepted.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 202-208]] Thus, a new formulation of the second law is needed that says how specific outcomes of theory assessment determine theory acceptance or unacceptance.