Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
As a result, it wasn't even clear whether the second law had any empirical content or whether it was a tautology. While Barseghyan held that it ''was'' a tautology,[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote 18]] its actual status as a tautology has been questioned almost from the outset (see [[Tautological Status of the Second Law]] for details).
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.
}}

Navigation menu