Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modification:Sciento-2017-0004 (view source)
Revision as of 13:14, 8 March 2018
, 13:14, 8 March 2018no edit summary
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=Accept [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|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''.
|Date Suggested Year=2017
|Date Suggested Month=February
|Authors List=Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
|Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)
|Preamble=[[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)|The current initial formulation of the second law]] is flawed since it does not specify the causal relations between the outcomes of theory assessment and the actual acceptance/unacceptance of a theory; it merely tells us that a theory was assessed by the method employed at the time. This is problematic as it doesn't say what happens to a theory when a certain assessment outcome obtains. Moreover, the deductions of several theorems assume a more specific formulation of the law, in which causal connections between assessment outcomes and theory acceptance/unacceptance are clearly stated.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)|pp. 30-32]] In particular, the deductions of the necessary and possible mosaic split theorems assume that the second law provides a clear account of the conditions under which theories become accepted or remain unaccepted.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 202-208]]. Thus, a new formulation of the second law is needed that says how specific outcomes of theory assessment determine theory acceptance or unacceptance.
|To Accept=The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017),
|To Reject=The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015), Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015), Outcome Not Accept (Barseghyan-2015), Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Assessment Outcomes (Barseghyan-2015), Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015),
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2017|Date Assessed Month=November|Date Assessed Day=29
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=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".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0004#comment-57|c1]]</sup> 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".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0004#comment-36|c2]]</sup> 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.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0001#comment-65|c3]]</sup>
}}
