Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, 14 March 2018
, 21:37, 14 March 2018no edit summary
|Authors List=Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2017
|Description={{#evt:service=youtube|id=mWciydFqP_E|urlargs=start=1443|alignment=right|description=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik|container=frame }} According to this formulation of the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
Unlike [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the previous formulation of the second law]], this formulation makes the causal connection between ''theory assessment outcomes'' and ''cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance'' explicit. In particular, it specifies what happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when a certain assessment outcome obtains.
In short, a new formulation of the second law was required that would fix these flaws. Thus, a new formulation was proposed which explicitly stated causal relationships between different theory assessment outcomes and actual cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance. By forbidding a number of logically possible combinations (e.g. Satisfied → Not Accept), this formulation made it clear that the law is ''not'' a tautology.
|Page Status=Editor Approved
}}
{{YouTube Video
|VideoID=mWciydFqP_E
|VideoStartAt=1443
|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik
|VideoEmbedSection=Description
}}
{{Acceptance Record
