The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015)
An attempt to answer the question of Tautological Status of the Second Law which states "The second law is a tautology."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 January 2016||The proposition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.||No||29 November 2017||The proposition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.|
Suggestions To Reject
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2017-0005||Scientonomy||5 February 2017||Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.||Accepted||The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.||29 November 2017|
The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: Is the second law a tautology, i.e. can it in principle be violated?
See Tautological Status of the Second Law for more details.
According to Barseghyan's initial position, "the second law is not a law in the traditional sense, for normally a law is supposed to have some empirical content, i.e. its opposite should be conceivable at least in principle. Obviously, the second law is a tautology, since it follows from the definition of employed method".1
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
- Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.