Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is the law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 a tautology?

As any law, the law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 attempts to forbid certain courses of action, for otherwise it would lack any empirical content and would be a tautology. Thus, the question is whether the law is tautological or non-tautological, i.e. whether there are courses of action in principle forbidden by the law.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question. It is formulated as: "The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological."

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy28 December 2018This is when Fraser and Sarwar's paper presenting the question was published.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.2018

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyThe Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)9 October 2021

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:
ModificationCommunityDate SuggestedSummaryVerdictVerdict RationaleDate Assessed
Sciento-2018-0018Scientonomy28 December 2018Accept the new dynamic law of compatibility which specifies how exactly two elements become to be considered compatible or incompatible within a mosaic.AcceptedIt was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"c1 as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"c2 and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".c3 The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".c4 While finding the law acceptable, one of the commentators raised an important question for future scientonomic research: do we even need a separate law of compatibility? Specifically they asked: "Is assessment for compatibility with other elements of the mosaic really conceptually distinct from the process of assessment for theory acceptance, which is already covered by other scientonomic laws?"c5 On this view, "the issue of the conceptual separability of theory compatibility and theory acceptance, and thus the need for two parallel laws, remains an open question that warrants further investigation".c69 October 2021

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018).

The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological." According to Fraser and Sarwar, their formulation of the law of compatibility "is non-tautological, as it prohibits certain logical possibilities."1p. 73

Related Topics

References

  1. ^  Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.