Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 02:51, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (This is the other modification that I am uncomfortable with, and my reasons here are quite similar to those I cited for rejecting 2019-0007. Let me raise another problem here, though: say we have a modification that gets accepted after rigorous debate, and everyone thinks that it is excellent. Now, after a few months, a new paper suggests a modification that proposes to replace the former. Assume that at this time the members of the scientonomic community are exceptionally busy and no one bot...)
  • 02:43, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0007 (This is one of two modifications that I am most uncomfortable with. The point of science in my view is to unearth truth. Voting is an inappropriate way of doing so. As a practical matter, though, I can see that we need to stimulate discussion, have a way of deciding on what should be accepted, etc. So what I will say below addresses some of these worries. We need to keep in mind who votes and how many people vote. It was suggested in the paper that everyone gets the chance to vote. Though I...)
  • 02:29, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and add a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite...)
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #150 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and a a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite t...)
  • 02:26, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0006 (This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I suggest accepting this modification.)
  • 02:25, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0005 (We should accept this modification, though this should not come at the expense of modification 2019-0002.)
  • 02:23, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (I am not sure what a "book prize" is. This sounds like a prize for writing a book, but that is not what is intended here. I recommend changing the name to something that more closely resembles what the prize is for. I am witholding judgment on this modification until further discussion. Also, and this is a completely separate suggestion, it may be useful if everyone who has an account on the Encyclopedia received a monthly email that talked about the new comments made to the modifications, e...)
  • 02:16, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (I have some questions about this. Say person X proposes a modification and person Y proposes a change to it that everyone agrees should be made. X may then give credit to Y, and so the latter's name also appears on the modification. Yet, when other scholars write papers that utilize this modification, what should do they cite? Should they cite the original paper? Alternatively, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted, do they cite the co-authored paper (published in either the journal or an edi...)
  • 02:11, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0002 (I think this definitely provides a much needed incentive. I think it is better if the work is published in edited collections than in the scientonomy journal. There are two reasons for this preference: (1) Edited collections broaden the audience of the scientonomic work. People who do not read ordinary scientonomy journal are unlikely to read a commentary on specific modifications in that journal. Rather, having edited collections, which I presume will be published by external publishers, inc...)
  • 02:03, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0001 (This seems like a perfectly fine suggestion. After all, if the acceptance of an idea (modification) depends on the discussion in these comments and communal consensus, then asking the reviewers to evaluate papers on whether they are acceptable (in the technical sense) seems besides the point. Hence, I suggest accepting this modificaiton.)
  • 22:57, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0013 (I think this modification should be accepted. The authors clearly show that in clinical epidemiology studies that relax one or more of the requirements of the randomized control trials (RCT) can be accepted provided that studies on the same topic that satisfy the RCT requirements have not been performed. I wish to make two comments. First, the authors claim that they are using a "conservative approach" in their use of the indicators. Specifically, they claim that "each of the studies discuss...)
  • 03:22, 11 June 2020 Kye Palider talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The way you talk about scientificity as "legitimate (i.e., potentially acceptable)" or "illegitimate (i.e., in principle unacceptable)" seems to equate scientificity with acceptability. Acceptability in the modal sense where if the appropriate evidence were to present itself, then that theory would become accepted. Are they the same thing? If they are, then acceptability is certainly a universal notion that can be applied to virtually all eras and agents. If not, then how does scientificity d...)
  • 02:29, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0019 (I think that the discussion of this modifications should be postponed until we have a verdict on modification 2018-0013. I believe that to recommend that it should not be accepted is a little hasty. Rather, the question of whether it should be accepted arises only after the status of modification 2018-0013 is resolved. Consequently, my recommendation is to withhold judgment at this stage.)
  • 02:25, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (I agree that since this law is non-tautological, it is a significant improvement over the previous understanding of the way compatibility works in scientific change. Thereofore, I recommend that this modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:21, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Therefore, my suggestion is that the modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:21, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (This modification claims that compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike. The previous definition claimed that this stance could be taken only towards theories. But we now recognize that this may hold between theories-theories, theories-methods, theories-questions, methods-methods, methods-questions, and questions-questions. The use of the term "elements" captures all of these possibilities. It is also neutral to the the addition of new epistemi...)
  • 02:11, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (I agree with both reasons that (1) the existence of compatibility criteria suggests the existence of the stance of compatibility, and that (2) this stance is in principle different from the other stances. I therefore also agree that this modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:00, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (I agree that until the discussion about the law of demarcation needs to be postponed until we have a consensus on what needs to be done with modification 2018-0013. If the modification is not accepted, then this law would also remain unaccepted. If the modification is accepted, then the question about whether this law is acceptable can be asked. In the meantime, then, my position is to withold judgment.)
  • 01:48, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (Thank you, Paul and Hakob, for your comments. I agree that the concept would greatly improve if it were properly defined. Yet, just as providing a criteria of demarcation is notoriously difficult, defining scientificity is likewise challenging. Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that we can intuitively understand 'scientificity' as relating to a community's notions of legitimacy or illigitimacy of theories, methods, or quesitons. I concede that the use of the term "scientificity" was imprud...)
  • 02:47, 4 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (Following a series of communal discussions, it is apparent that there is a communal consensus that the modification is to be accepted.)
  • 21:23, 17 May 2020 William Rawleigh talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (I agree with Hakob. The distinction between individual and communal agents as being distinct subtypes of epistemic agents, as well as the question Patton opens up with regards to the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents, are of criti...)
  • 21:14, 17 May 2020 William Rawleigh talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (I think that regardless of whether https://scientowiki.com/Modification:Sciento-2019-0014 is accepted that this modification should be accepted. The fact is that the community has been referring to 'epistemic agents' for some time now, and it's de fact...)
  • 04:41, 20 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (At first blush, one might think that there is no need to differentiate compatibility from acceptance, since the compatibility corollary already requires that elements of the mosaic be compatible with one another. However, Fraser and Sarwar argue convin...)
  • 04:27, 20 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (The authors argue convincingly that the Zeroth Law of scientific change is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility. A compatibility corollary follows from this definition and the observation that the elem...)
  • 16:56, 12 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (I don't deny that communities can consist of subcommunities, but I claim that without an explanation of what it means for Community B to be a subcommunity of community A this claim is devoid of all content. Suppose, for example, I claim that the commun...)
  • 16:03, 12 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (Since I wrote my original comment, I have proposed a definition of epistemic agent, which is now under consideration for acceptance. I think we do have sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scie...)
  • 22:28, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0020 (What I said in my commentary on modification 2018-0013, there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for accepting ''scientificity'' as a ''universal'' stance. Since I think that scientificity is a ''local'' stance, I d...)
  • 22:21, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0019 (This modification assumes that scientificity is a universal epistemic stance. As I indicated in my commentary on modification 2018-0013, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to think that scientificity is a unive...)
  • 22:14, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Since compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of ''all'' types, we need a better definition that the one we currently accept. Fraser and Sarwar's definition, I believe, is a great improvement over the current one. My p...)
  • 22:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (I agree with Fraser and Sarwar that if we accept the existence of a certain type of criteria, we should also accept the respective stance. Since we accept the existence of ''compatibility criteria'' - and this strikes me as unproblematic - then we shou...)
  • 22:01, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Since I don't believe we have sufficient evidence for accepting that ''scientificity'' is a universal stance, I am not sure we need a law to explain how that stance obtains. So my position is that we should not accept this modification. That being sai...)
  • 21:56, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (A quick follow up on my previous comment. It is currently accepted that the criteria that make up a method are threefold - acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria, and demarcation criteria. If we end up not accepting Sarwar and Fraser's modificatio...)
  • 21:46, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (if I understand it correctly, Sarwar and Fraser's suggestion amounts to accepting the idea that scientificity is a ''universal'' stance that can be taken towards theories. This assumes that ''scientificity'' as a stance is found not only in the post-ei...)
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #119 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 21:07, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #118 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 21:07, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 20:49, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (While I agree with Paul that there is more to be said about the conditions under which the relationship between sub- and super-community can obtain, this doesn't really concern the gist of Overgaard's modification. The only thing Overgaard is claiming...)
  • 20:35, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0012 (To sum up the discussions concerning this modification that happen primarily off-line: the community seems to have no objections against this modification. It is taken as given these days that technological knowledge can be and often is accepted by dif...)
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #114 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (This modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge. Once we accept that the current zeroth law is a tautology, it becomes clear that we need a new law explaining the mechanism of compatibility, i.e. a law stating...)
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (This modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge. Once we accept that the current zeroth law is a tautology, it becomes clear that we need a new law explaining the mechanism of compatibility, i.e. a law stating...)
  • 18:44, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (This modification comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions in our original theory. The current zeroth law was meant to highlight the fact that consistency and compatibility are not the same thing. While that is all well and good, we missed the fact...)
  • 13:50, 3 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (This is a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology. For several years, we have been talking about epistemic agents taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements, but the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear. Patton does...)
  • 15:49, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (While I agree that a proper definition of ''epistemic agent'' is to be actively pursued, I don't think that a lack of such definition is to be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of ''scientific mosaic''. After all, it is...)
  • 01:56, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0008 (This is to record that a consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside this discussion page. It was also agreed that Paul's concerns raised above are justified: when a modification is introduced to the body of scienton...)
  • 01:12, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0010 (This is to record that the consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. It has been agreed that any element or stance can be explicit or implicit.)
  • 00:53, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0011 (This is to record that the consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. It has been agreed that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between ''explicable-i...)
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)