Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
|To Reject=Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015),
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2020|Date Assessed Month=May|Date Assessed Day=17
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=Initially, the modification raised an objection from [[Paul Patton
Patton]] who argued that the modification "is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; ''epistemic agent'', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-97|c1]]</sup> This objection received two counterarguments. According to [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]], the lack of such a definition of ''epistemic agent'' should not "be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of scientific mosaic", since inevitably in any taxonomy there are terms that "rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-111|c2]]</sup> This point was seconded by [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]] who argued that the definition of ''scientific mosaic'' is to be accepted regardless of whether there is an accepted definition of ''epistemic agent'', since "it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-132|c3]]</sup> In early 2020, Patton dropped his objection as he found that there was "sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scientific mosaic, even without first accepting a definition of epistemic agent".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-128|c4]]</sup> Additionally, Rawleigh argued that the definition is to be accepted since we have "already accepted the revised question-theory ontology".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0009#comment-132|c5]]</sup>
}}

Navigation menu