editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Page Status=Needs Editing
The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 19:38, 10 February 2023
, 19:38, 10 February 2023no edit summary
In 2018, [[Patrick Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar]] suggested that the law has no empirical content as it fails to say much beyond what is implicit in the notion of [[Compatibility|''compatibility'']].[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)]] Consequently, they suggested that the zeroth law is to be replaced by a definition of ''compatibility'' as well as a [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|compatibility corollary]]. This [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0015|modification]] became accepted in 2020 and the zeroth law became rejected.
}}
{{YouTube Video
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Inconsistency Tolerance 2- General and singular|Description=As per Barseghyan, "In the second scenario(of inconsistency tolerance), we are normally willing to tolerate inconsistencies between an accepted general theory and a singular proposition describing some anomaly. In this scenario, the general proposition and the singular proposition describe the same phenomenon; the latter describes a counterexample for the former. However, the community is tolerant towards this inconsistency for it is understood that anomalies are always possible. No doubt, we are never pleased to find out that a certain accepted empirical theory faces anomalies, but we also understand that no empirical theory is infallible and, therefore, the mere presence of anomalies is no reason for rejecting our accepted empirical theories.. We appreciate that both the general theory in question and the singular factual proposition may contain grains of truth. In this sense, we are anomaly-tolerant".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp."160]]|Example Type=HybridHypothetical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
