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-2018-0006 (view source)
Revision as of 20:49, 9 October 2018
, 20:49, 9 October 2018no edit summary
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Resource=Barseghyan (2018)
|Preamble=TODOThe current scientonomic ontology is flawed in a number of ways. First, it doesn’t include ''definitions'' as a subtype of ''theory'' and, therefore, differs from the ontology that is in the backbone of the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy. In addition, it distinguishes between two classes of elements – methods and methodologies – based on their respective historical fates rather than their propositional contents. This results in a somewhat absurd practice when the same criterion of theory evaluation can be classified either as a theory (methodology) or as a method depending on whether it has or hasn’t been historically accepted and/or employed. Furthermore, the currently accepted ontology relies heavily on the distinction between ''implicit'' and ''tacit'', whereas the analysis shows that implicitness or explicitness cannot be grounds for drawing ontological distinctions. Consequently, we need to accept a new scientonomic ontology which doesn’t confuse the propositional content of an element with the historical records of its acceptances and/or employments. The suggested ontology helps solve some of the issues permeating the current ontology. First, it builds on [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh’s]] [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0002|suggestion]] to include [[Question|questions]] as a distinct class of epistemic elements and considers a theory as an attempt to answer a certain question. Second, since ''method'' is defined as a set of criteria for theory evaluation, it is not an independent epistemic element but is a subtype of ''normative theory''. Third, since methods and methodologies of the currently accepted ontology do not differ from the perspective of their propositional content (i.e. both are criteria for theory evaluation), they in fact belong to one and the same class of epistemic elements. I [[Modification: Sinan add Sciento-2018-0005|suggested]] to reserve the word “method” for this type of epistemic element, and use “methodology” to denote the respective normative discipline. Fourth, it stipulates that methods can be both ''accepted'' and ''employed''. However, it notes that the ability of being employed is not peculiar exclusively to methods, but characterizes [[Normative Theory|normative propositions]] of all kinds, including ethical norms, aesthetic norms, and technological guidelines. Fifth, it introduces [[Definition|''definition'']] as a preamblesubtype of theory.
|To Accept=Epistemic Elements - Questions and Theories (Barseghyan-2018), Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018),
|To Reject=Epistemic Elements - Theories Methods and Questions (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Acceptance (Sebastien-2016),
