Employed Method
Revision as of 04:30, 3 November 2016 by Hakob Barseghyan (talk | contribs)
What is employed method? How should it be defined?
Employed method is one of the key concepts in current scientonomy. Thus, its proper definition is of great importance.
In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | This is when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is an indication that the topic itself is legitimate. | No | 1 September 2019 | The usage of the term as referring to an epistemic stance was deprecated after the acceptance of the term norm employment. |
All Theories
The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015) | A method is said to be employed at time t if, at time t, theories become accepted only when their acceptance is permitted by the method. | 2015 |
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | A method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community. | 2017 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 | 28 November 2017 |
Scientonomy | Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | 29 November 2017 | 1 September 2019 |
Suggested Modifications
Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Verdict | Verdict Rationale | Date Assessed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2017-0004 | Scientonomy | 5 February 2017 | 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. | Accepted | 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 | 29 November 2017 |
Current View
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
Related Topics
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
References
- a b c Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
- a b c 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.