The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)
This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Questions that states "An accepted question remains accepted in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements."
The First Law for Questions was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Nichole Levesley in 2021.1 It is also known as The Law of Scientific Inertia for Questions. It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
Contents
Scientonomic History
While the specific formulation of the law for questions was suggested in 2021,1 it was initially not included in the list of modifications suggested in Barseghyan and Levesley's paper due to an omission on the author's and editor's part. It was only suggested for acceptance as part of Pandey's modification Sciento-2023-0002.2
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 22 February 2024 | The law became accepted as a result of the acceptance of modification Sciento-2023-0002. | Yes |
Suggestions To Accept
Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Date Assessed | Verdict | Verdict Rationale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2023-0002 | Scientonomy | 28 December 2023 | Accept new formulations of the first law for theories, norms, and questions that are in tune with the formulation of the first law. Also accept new formulations of the respective rejection theorems - theory rejection, norm rejection, and question rejection. | 22 January 2024 | Accepted | During the 2024 workshop, the bulk of the discussion centered around the inclusion of the first law for norms and norm rejection theorem in the set of formulations to be accepted. Paul Patton contended that norm employment in general had not been demonstrated to be lawful beyond method employment, and our basic formulations should instead concern norm acceptance, which is patently lawful. He argued that the formulations should be modified to pertain either to methods only or to norm acceptance. It was decided that if the community were to remain uncomfortable with accepting Pandey’s new formulations, a revote would likely also need to be taken on Rawleigh’s Sciento-2022-0002, given that the issue of norm employment was also highlighted in discussions of that modification. After extensive discussion, Barseghyan suggested that the first law for norms would only apply to situations where behavior was norm-guided to begin with, which would skirt the difficulty that faces even behavioural psychologists of determining whether human behaviour in general is lawful. The majority of the community was comfortable with this workaround, and the modification was ultimately accepted with over 2/3rds majority assenting, with 11/14 votes to accept (although 1 voter voted to reject the modification and 2 voted to keep it open). |
Question Answered
The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is an attempt to answer the following question: What makes the questions of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?
See Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Questions for more details.
Description
This formulation specifies the first law for questions. It makes it explicit that an accepted question stays in the agent's mosaic insofar as it is not replaced by other epistemic elements.
Reasons
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
The following higher-order questions concerning this theory have been suggested:
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
References
- a b Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. Scientonomy 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.
- ^ Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. Scientonomy 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.