Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Modification:Sciento-2018-0016 (view source)
Revision as of 16:47, 21 February 2023
, 16:47, 21 February 2023no edit summary
|Summary=Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general.
|Date Suggested Year=2018
|Date Suggested Month=JanuaryDecember
|Date Suggested Day=28
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Ameer Sarwar, Patrick Fraser
|Resource=Fraser and Sarwar (2018)
|Preamble=''Compatibility'' is a distinct [[Epistemic Stances|epistemic stance]] that [[Epistemic Agent|agents]] can take towards [[Epistemic Elements - Questions and Theories (Barseghyan-2018)Element|epistemic elements]]. It is distinct because it is possible to show that an agent can take this stance without necessarily taking others, such as [[Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018)|''acceptance'']]. Although all elements of the mosaic are compatible in principle, there may be unaccepted theories that are either compatible or incompatible with elements in the mosaic. Compatibility is therefore distinct from acceptance, because epistemic agents can evaluate the compatibility of unaccepted theories with one another or with accepted theories.
Compatibility is also distinct from [[Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)|''use'']], because epistemic agents are perfectly capable of using or failing to use theories regardless of their mutually compatibility. Quantum mechanics is both used and accepted by the contemporary scientific community, as is evolutionary theory. Although quantum theory and evolution are compatible members of the same mosaic, it is nonetheless the case that evolutionary theory, unlike quantum mechanics has few practical applications and remains largely unused.
Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not sui generis.
|To Accept=Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=Accepted
|Date Assessed Day=1
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-131|c1]]</sup> as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c2]]</sup> The reviewers agree agreed that "Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-131|c3]]</sup> since it "can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c4]]</sup> It was also argued that "since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria... we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-124|c5]]</sup> Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0016#comment-176|c6]]</sup>
|Superseded By=
}}