Changes

|Description=Like the [[Demarcation Criteria|demarcation ]] and [[Acceptance Criteria|acceptance criteracriteria]], the compatibility criteria are can be part of an epistemic communityagent's employed method of the time. The community uses this An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements -- (e.g. methods, theories, or questions -- ) are mutually compatibleor incompatible, i. This criteira e. whether they can be used simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it(e.g. Indeed, scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). [[Patrick Fraser|Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar|Sarwar]] point out that [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]]'s [[Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)|original definition]] of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|p. 72]] To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|p.72]]

Moreover, the Different communities can have different compatibility criteria is strictly between two elements, i.e., it tells While some communities may opt to employ the community whether any pair logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of elements is compatible. Howevercompatibility, if element A is compatible with B, and B is compatible with C, then by transitivity A is compatible with Cother communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. As a resultAccording to Barseghyan, a mosaic the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a set good indication that the actual criteria of mutually compatible elementscompatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. In 11]] For example, this way, is apparent in the compatibility case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the mosaic best available descriptions of a given community can their respective domains (i.e. they are considered ''compatible''), but are known to be understood in terms of the compatibility of its constituent elementsconflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.

|Page Status=StubNeeds Editing|Editor Notes=A few examples would be nice