Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Created page with "{{Modification |Community=Community:Scientonomy |Acronym=Sciento |Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorem..."
{{Modification
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.
|Date Suggested Year=2023
|Date Suggested Month=December
|Date Suggested Day=28
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey
|Resource=Pandey (2023)
|Preamble=There are a number of scenarios of theory replacement allowed by the first law, such as the replacement by negation, the replacement by an answer to a different question, the replacement that involves the rejection of the question, and the replacement by a higher-order proposition. The only scenario that the first law forbids is that of the rejection without any replacement whatsoever, as in the cases of element decay. The very existence of the phenomenon of element decay, therefore, poses a problem for the first law: if element decay is forbidden by the first law, then does this imply that the first law has been falsified? This brought us to our dilemma: either (1) exclude the cases of rejection without replacement from the scope of scientonomy and admit that the first law is a tautology or (2) include the cases of rejection without replacement into the scope of scientonomy and admit that such cases present a serious anomaly for the first law.
The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.
|Modification=
|To Accept=The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=Open
|Date Assessed Year=
|Date Assessed Month=
|Date Assessed Day=
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=
|Verdict Chart=
|Superseded By=
}}
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.
|Date Suggested Year=2023
|Date Suggested Month=December
|Date Suggested Day=28
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey
|Resource=Pandey (2023)
|Preamble=There are a number of scenarios of theory replacement allowed by the first law, such as the replacement by negation, the replacement by an answer to a different question, the replacement that involves the rejection of the question, and the replacement by a higher-order proposition. The only scenario that the first law forbids is that of the rejection without any replacement whatsoever, as in the cases of element decay. The very existence of the phenomenon of element decay, therefore, poses a problem for the first law: if element decay is forbidden by the first law, then does this imply that the first law has been falsified? This brought us to our dilemma: either (1) exclude the cases of rejection without replacement from the scope of scientonomy and admit that the first law is a tautology or (2) include the cases of rejection without replacement into the scope of scientonomy and admit that such cases present a serious anomaly for the first law.
The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.
|Modification=
|To Accept=The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=Open
|Date Assessed Year=
|Date Assessed Month=
|Date Assessed Day=
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=
|Verdict Chart=
|Superseded By=
}}