Changes

|Preamble=The issue of scientific error was first raised as an open question within the scientonomic community by [[Mechanism of Error Rejection of Data| Maxim Mirkin and Sinan Karamehmetoglu in 2018]]. The concept of error has been used in many different ways by historians and philosophers of science, and it was necessary to distinguish the sense of error that interests us scientonomically. An absolute sense of error is one in which past science is judged from a modern perspective, in which, for example, belief in phlogiston as the basis of combustion might be judged as an error by a modern chemist. This absolute sense of error was not the one that interested us, since we do not believe it is possible, or useful for scientonomic purposes, to take up an absolute point of view. The sense of error we are interested in is one that can be judged from a [[Epistemic Agent| historical actor's]] perspective in accordance with the [[Method| method]][[Norm Employment| employed]] by the actor at the time. Such a definition was necessary to [[Mechanism of Error Rejection of Data| resolve a controversy]] about whether cases of scientific error violated accepted scientonomic principles .[[CiteRef::Machado-Marques and Patton(2021)]].

|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2021|Date Assessed Month=October|Date Assessed Day=8

|Verdict Rationale=It was agreed that the definition "succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method".^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0003#comment-158|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0003#comment-186|c2]]} The importance of the concept of error for ''the Tree of Knowledge'' project was also noted. Specifically, it was argued that "we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accepted in accordance with an agent’s employed method and those which were not" so that we can better understand the reasoning underlying individual transitions.^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0003#comment-174|c3]]} Finally, it was suggested that a further distinction between “instances of honest error and misconduct” might be worth pursuing.^{[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2021-0003#comment-175|c4]]}