Search by property

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

List of results

• Anomalies  + (At the level of metatheory, the relevant e … At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ''ought to be'' the facts relating to the state of the ''scientific mosaic'' and its ''transitions''. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can ''only'' be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.tified for a specific scientonomic theory.)
• The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.)
• Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.)
• Mutual Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)  + (Communities A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to community B, and community B delegates authority over topic ''y'' to community A.)
• One-sided Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)  + (Communities A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to community B, but community B doesn’t delegate any authority to community A.)
• Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)  + (Community A is said to be delegating authority over topic ''x'' to community B ''iff'' (1) community A accepts that community B is an expert on topic ''x'' and (2) community A will accept a theory on topic ''x'' if community B says so.)
• Singular Authority Delegation (Loiselle-2017)  + (Community A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over topic ''x'' ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to exactly one community.)
• Multiple Authority Delegation (Loiselle-2017)  + (Community A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over topic ''x'' ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to more than one community.)
• Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Criteria for determining whether a theory is ''acceptable'' or ''unacceptable.'')
• Acceptance Criteria  + (Criteria for determining whether a theory is ''acceptable'' or ''unacceptable.'')
• Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Criteria for determining whether a theory is ''scientific'' or ''unscientific.'')
• Demarcation Criteria  + (Criteria for determining whether a theory is ''scientific'' or ''unscientific.'')
• Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + (Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.)
• Compatibility Criteria  + (Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.)
• Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Criteria for determining whether two theories are ''compatible'' or ''incompatible.'')
• Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question ''x'' to epistemic agent B ''iff'' (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question ''x'' and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question ''x'' if agent B says so.)
• Authority Delegation  + (Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question ''x'' to epistemic agent B ''iff'' (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question ''x'' and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question ''x'' if agent B says so.)
• Singular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to exactly one epistemic agent.)
• Singular Authority Delegation  + (Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to exactly one epistemic agent.)
• Multiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to more than one epistemic agent.)
• Multiple Authority Delegation  + (Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to more than one epistemic agent.)
• Mutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, and B delegates authority over question ''y'' to A.)
• Mutual Authority Delegation  + (Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, and B delegates authority over question ''y'' to A.)
• One-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.)
• One-sided Authority Delegation  + (Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.)
• Demarcation-Acceptance Synchronism (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + (Every theory that becomes accepted satisfies the demarcation criteria employed at the time of acceptance.)

• Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)  + (Harder's zeroth law is tautological.)
• The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) is Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + (Harder's zeroth law is tautological.)

• The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + (If a pair of elements satisfies the compat … If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.ncompatible, or its status may be unknown.)
• Mechanism of Compatibility  + (If a pair of elements satisfies the compat … If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.ncompatible, or its status may be unknown.)
• Mechanism of Scientific Change  + (If a pair of elements satisfies the compat … If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.ncompatible, or its status may be unknown.)
• Theory vs. Method Compatibility  + (If a pair of elements satisfies the compat … If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.ncompatible, or its status may be unknown.)
• Compatibility of Mosaic Elements  + (If a pair of elements satisfies the compat … If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.ncompatible, or its status may be unknown.)
• The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)  + (If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.)
• Nature of Appraisal  + (If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.)
• Mechanism of Scientific Change  + (If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.)
• Status of Reasons  + (If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.)
• Mechanism of Theory Acceptance  + (If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.)
• The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)  + (If a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain.)
• Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.)
• Changeability of the Scientific Mosaic  + (If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.)
• Mechanism of Scientific Change  + (If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.)
• Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)  + (If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change.)
• Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent  + (If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change.)
• Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one element. That is, scientific change is impossible in an empty mosaic.)
• Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.)
• Necessary Methods  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.)
• Necessary Normative Theories  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.)
• Necessary Theories  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.)
• Necessary Epistemic Elements  + (In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.)
• The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)  + (In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time.)
• Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)  + (It is implicit in the definition of scient … It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.t the level of the beliefs of individuals.)