Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
|Date Suggested Day=12
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=William Rawleigh,
|Resource=Rawleigh (2018)
|Preamble=Once we accept that questions as a distinct epistemic element of the scientonomic ontology, we need to indicate what types of stance an epistemic agent can take towards questions. This modification suggests that a question can be ''accepted'' or ''unaccepted'' by epistemic agents as a legitimate topic of inquiryand provides a definition of ''question acceptance''.|Modification=|To Accept=Epistemic Stances Towards Questions - Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018),Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018), Question Acceptance Exists, Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018)|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2018-0002,|Automatic=No|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2018|Date Assessed Month=November|Date Assessed Day=1
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=It was noted that "the whole point of adding questions to the ontology of epistemic elements was that we can legitimately speak of a question being accepted by a certain agent at a certain time".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-83|c1]]</sup> The discussion also revealed a need to distinguish "a situation where no consensus exists from a situation where a consensus exists that a question is illegitimate".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-87|c2]]</sup> In other words, "just as question acceptance, theory acceptance too seems to allow for three values: (clearly) accepted; (clearly) unaccepted; no consensus".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-89|c3]]</sup> Thus, a new question was suggested concerning the binary character of epistemic stances: "are all epistemic stances binary, or do they allow for more than two values?"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-89|c4]]</sup>
|Superseded By=
}}

Navigation menu