Inexplicable

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Revision as of 00:54, 29 January 2019 by Hakob Barseghyan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Topic |Question=What is '''inexplicable''' knowledge? How should it be ''defined''? |Topic Type=Definitional |Authors List=Maxim Mirkin, Hakob Barseghyan, |Formulated Year=2...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?

In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in 2018. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:

  • Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.

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):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy28 December 2018The publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.2018

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:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyInexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)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-2018-0011 Scientonomy 28 December 2018 Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable. Accepted The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."c2 1 September 2019

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018).

Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) states: "Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions."

The category is agent-relative and encompasses that knowledge which cannot - even in principle - be explicated. The definition was first suggested by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin in their The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change1 and was restated by Mirkin in his The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic.

Related Topics

References

  1. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob and Mirkin, Maxim. (2019) The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change. In Héder and Nádasi (Eds.) (2019), 5-17.