Changes

* What makes It is a historical fact that methods and methodologies that are can be present in the same mosaic despite being inconsistent. This is not a problem for the TSC, since the Zeroth Law (reformulated as the Law of Compatibility) allows for inconsistentelements to exist in the same mosaic. However, compatible? For a historical question remains as to how the compatibility criteria of a given mosaic allows of the co-existence of inconsistent methods and methodologies. How example, why do we think that how is the HD hypothetico-deductive method and compatible with an inductivist methodologies are compatiblemethodology?* Has our criteria of compatibility, which accepts inconsistencies, become vacuous or trivial? (Jennifer Whyte, 2016)* What There is currently an open question regarding the relationship between status of technological knowledge in the mosaic, and whether they should be formulated as “accepted” or “useful” beliefs. (Sean Cohmer, 2015). In addition, we can ask how technological research tools relate to employed methods and . Currently, according to the TSC, knowledge concerning technical research tools? Are takes the forms of accepted beliefs, of the kind “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”. This in turn leads to the employment of telescopes as a method for examining celestial bodies. However, are there technological tools that are used independently from of any method? (Paul Patton, 2016) One possibility might be the technique of brainstorming: we commonly use it as a research technique, but don’t seem to formulate it as a method. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* What is the relationship between individuals and mosaics? Can an individual ever be considered the bearer of a mosaic? (Kevin Zheng, 2016) Two If so, then we are presented with two possibilities: either the definition of “community” is reformulated to allow for a community to be comprised of only one person, or we change the definition of “mosaic” should be changed to include the possibility that an individual can bear a mosaic. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* How do should we define the term “law”in the context of the TSC? Hakob currently Barseghyan loosely defines “law” as “a a regularity that applies to everything in your a given ontology”ontology. Is However, this acceptable? This seems to differ from current usage (for exampleof the term. For instance, the fact that evolutionary biology explains regularities but Evolutionary Biology is not considered a law), and yet it does explain regularities in nature. Is that this a problem? (Paul Patton, 2016)* If something like evolutionary biology Evolutionary Biology has predictive power in virtue of explaining past regularities, does this imply that the TSC, which also explains past regularities, does or should as well? (Paul Patton, 2016)* Are there in fact philosophical communities, or is there always too much disagreement? Are these disagreements the result of acceptance criteria which are too strict, or too vague? The answer to this question would require historical analysis. (Jennifer Whyte, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* Choice The TSC states that the choice of relevant facts is guided by our existing theories. Is this it also the case for our choice of relevant questions/problems? How do that questions/problems in science become relevantbecause of existing theories? (Nick Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)Before we answer this question, it is important to note that a prior question exists concerning the status of questions/problems in the mosaic: are they separate entities, or can they be formulated as beliefs?* In what circumstances can the views of an individual scientist be indicative of the views of their community? For example, can a historical analysis of Giordano Bruno’s belief in heliocentricism and the opposition he received from other natural philosophers shed light on the geocentric beliefs of his community? (Jennifer Whyte, Jacob MacKinnon, Joshua Payne Smith, 2016)