Paul Patton

Paul Patton (born 31 October 1957) is an American scientonomist and editor of the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy notable for his reformulation of the second law of scientific change, his work on disciplines, epistemic agents and tools, as well as his contributions to the formation of the scientonomy community.

Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested by Patton:

• Sciento-2017-0004: Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".^c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".^c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.^c3
• Sciento-2017-0005: Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. 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.
• Sciento-2017-0006: Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2019-0014: Accept the new definition of epistemic agent as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton on 26 December 2019.2 The modification was accepted on 11 October 2020. The modification was characterized as "a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology" for despite all the talks of epistemic agents "the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear" for years,^c1 for its "strict explication has been lacking".^c2 It was agreed that the definition is an important starting point for our discussions concerning individual and communal agents.^{c3 c4} It was also noted that the definition is important for addressing the "the question of agency of epistemic tools"^c5 and the question of "the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents".^c6
• Sciento-2019-0015: Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the question of applicability of the laws of scientific change to individuals as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton on 26 December 2019.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2019-0016: Accept the definition of epistemic tool, stating that a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton on 26 December 2019.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2019-0017: Accept the definitions of authority delegation, and its subtypes, that generalize the currently accepted definitions to apply to all epistemic agents, rather than only communities. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton on 26 December 2019.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2019-0018: Accept that the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Also accept the definition of tool reliance, which states that an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton on 26 December 2019.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2021-0003: Accept the definition of error, stating that an epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton and Sarah Machado-Marques on 1 August 2021.3 The modification was accepted on 8 October 2021. It was agreed that the definition "succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method".^{c1 c2} The importance of the concept of error for the Tree of Knowledge project was also noted. Specifically, it was argued that "we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accepted in accordance with an agent’s employed method and those which were not" so that we can better understand the reasoning underlying individual transitions.^c3 Finally, it was suggested that a further distinction between “instances of honest error and misconduct” might be worth pursuing.^c4
• Sciento-2021-0004: Accept that the handling of scientific error, as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with the theory rejection theorem. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton and Sarah Machado-Marques on 1 August 2021.3 The modification was accepted on 8 October 2021. The commentators agreed that "the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem".^{c1 c2 c3} It was agreed that the rejection of a theory that was accepted erroneously can be "a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories".^{c4 c5 c6} One commentator expressed a common opinion when saying that "the authors are able to put to rest concerns about the handling of scientific error potentially contravening the theory rejection theorem".^c7
• Sciento-2021-0006: Accept new definitions of subquestion, core question, core theory, discipline, delineating theory, subdiscipline, and discipline acceptance. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton and Cyrus Al-Zayadi on 1 August 2021.4 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.

Theories

The following table contains all the theories formulated by Patton:

Title	Type	Formulation	Formulated In
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Normative	Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by: documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia; scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats; publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions; evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.	2016
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	A method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.	2017
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	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.	2017
Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	2017
The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	The second law is not a tautology.	2017
Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	2017
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.	2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of a Single Contender (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	There is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender.	2017
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.	2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of Two Contenders (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	There is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories.	2017
Mutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	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.	2019
Singular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	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.	2019
Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019)	Definition	An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.	2019
Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.	2019
Epistemic Agents - Communities and Individuals (Patton-2019)	Descriptive	There are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal.	2019
Epistemic Tool (Patton-2019)	Definition	A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent iff there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	2019
Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.	2019
Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	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.	2019
Tool Reliance (Patton-2019)	Definition	An epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool iff there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	2019
Multiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	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.	2019
One-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)	Definition	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.	2019
Error (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)	Definition	An epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method.	2021
Error Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)	Descriptive	The handling of instances of scientific error is consistent with the theory rejection theorem; it involves a replacement of an erroneously accepted theory either with a first- or second-order proposition.	2021
Core Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A core theory of a discipline is a theory presupposed by the discipline’s core questions.	2021
Subquestion (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A question Q is a subquestion of another question Q’, iff any direct answer to Q is also a partial answer to Q’.	2021
Core Question (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A core question of a discipline is a question identified in the discipline’s delineating theory as definitive of the discipline.	2021
Discipline Acceptance (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A discipline is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if that agent accepts the core questions specified in the discipline’s delineating theory as well as the delineating theory itself.	2021
Subdiscipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A discipline A is a subdiscipline of another discipline B, iff the set of questions of A, QA, is a proper subset of the questions of B, QB, i.e. QA ⸦ QB.	2021
Delineating Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A second-order theory identifying the set of core questions of a discipline.	2021
Discipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)	Definition	A discipline is characterized by (1) a non-empty set of core questions Q and (2) the delineating theory stating that Q are the core questions of the discipline.	2021

Questions

Here are all the questions formulated by Patton:

• Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals: Do the scientonomic laws apply to individual epistemic agents?
• Application of Scientonomy to Other Fields: What is the broader relevance of scientonomy? How can scientonomy inform other fields of inquiry?
• Conclusive Theory Assessment: Are there any actual historical instances of conclusive theory assessment or does every case of theory assessment involve some degree of inconclusiveness?
• Core Question: What is core question? How should it be defined?
• Core Theory: What is core theory? How should it be defined?
• Delegation of Authority to Past Communities: Is it possible for a community to delegate authority to a community that no longer exists? Can a community delegate authority to a past expert?
• Delineating Theory: What is delineating theory? How should it be defined?
• Deriving Methods from an Empty Set: Does the possibility of a method being derived from an empty set pose a problem for the current formulation of the third law? Can we conceive of a situation in which a method is derived from an empty subset?
• Discipline: What is discipline? How should it be defined?
• Discipline Acceptance: What is discipline acceptance? How should it be defined?
• Epistemic Agent: What is epistemic agent? How should it be defined?
• Epistemic Tool: What is epistemic tool? How should it be defined?
• Error: What is error? How should it be defined?
• Indicators of Inconclusiveness: What indicators enable us to identify a historical case of inconclusive theory assessment?
• Individual and Communal Levels: What is the relation between the communal and the individual level? To what extent can the individual level epistemic stances tell about the communal level?
• Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes: What can an observational scientonomist infer about a theory's assessment outcome from the theory's acceptance/unacceptance?
• Law: How should we define the term law in the scientonomic context? How is law different from theory? Do we even need law as a separate concept?
• Mechanism of Discipline Acceptance: What is the mechanism of discipline acceptance? How do disciplines become accepted?
• Mechanism of Discipline Rejection: What is the mechanism of discipline rejection? How do disciplines become rejected?
• Methods and Technical Research Tools: What is the relationship between methods and technical research tools?
• Outcome Not Satisfied: How should the theory assessment outcome not satisfied be defined?
• Outcome Satisfied: How should the theory assessment outcome satisfied be defined?
• Role of Non-Social and Environmental Factors in Scientific Change: In addition to interactions between people in a community, what role do interactions between people and their natural, non-social environment have on the process of scientific change?
• Role of Practical Considerations in Scientific Change: What is the role of practical considerations such as financial constraints or limitations of manpower in the process of scientific change?
• Role of Used Theories in Method Employment: Does the third law allow for methods to be deductive consequences of used theories?
• Scientonomic Workflow: How should changes in the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge be introduced? What are the steps and procedures of the scientonomic workflow?
• Subdiscipline: What is subdiscipline? How should it be defined?
• Subquestion: What is subquestion? How should it be defined?
• Technological Theory: What is technological theory? How should it be defined?
• The Necessity of Language in Community: Is a shared language, or propositional code, presupposed by the existence of an epistemic community?
• The Status of Holism and Ripple Effect: Is it the case that changes in one of the elements of a mosaic can have a "ripple effect" on the rest of the mosaic?
• Theories Shaping Core Questions: How do theories within a discipline shape and change the core questions of the disciplines?
• Theory Displacement: Is it conceivable that, following the rejection of a method, that any theories which satisfied its requirements also would become rejected, seeing as how the reasons for belief in them no longer hold (in the eyes of the community)?
• Tool Reliance: What is tool reliance? How should it be defined?
• Workflow - Handling Ripple Effects: How should the scientonomic workflow handle the ripple effect of additional minor changes to the body of scientonomic knowledge caused by the acceptance of a certain modification?

Publications

Here are the works of Patton included in the bibliographic records of this encyclopedia:

• Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022): Barseghyan, Hakob et al. (Eds.). (2022) Scientonomy: The Challenges of Constructing a Theory of Scientific Change. Vernon Press.
• Machado-Marques and Patton (2021): Machado-Marques, Sarah and Patton, Paul. (2021) Scientific Error and Error Handling. Scientonomy 4, 21-39. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37121.
• Palider et al. (2021): Palider, Kye et al. (2021) A Diagrammatic Notation for Visualizing Epistemic Entities and Relations. Scientonomy 4, 87-139. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37904.
• Patton (2019): Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. Scientonomy 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.
• Patton (2022): Patton, Paul. (2022) Scientonomy and the Sociotechnical Domain. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 143-175.
• Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021): Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. Scientonomy 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.
• Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017): Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.
• Rupik et al. (2022): Rupik, Gregory et al. (2022) Introduction. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), xi-xvi.

To add a bibliographic record by this author, enter the citation key below:

 

Citation keys normally include author names followed by the publication year in brackets. E.g. Aristotle (1984), Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (1935), Musgrave and Pigden (2016), Kuhn (1970a), Lakatos and Musgrave (Eds.) (1970). If a record with that citation key already exists, you will be sent to a form to edit that page.