Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009

Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.

Sort by date Sort by score

Enable comment auto-refresher

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Paul Patton

70 months ago

Score 0

While I support the eventual acceptance of this definition, I believe it is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; 'epistemic agent', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy. I will be proposing a definition of 'epistemic agent' in association with a paper currently under review. If this definition, or some other satisfactory definition of 'epistemic agent' is accepted by the community, then I believe that this definition of 'Scientific Mosaic' is otherwise suitable for acceptance. It rectifies some important flaws in the earlier definition of 'Scientific Mosaic'.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Hakob Barseghyan

64 months ago

Score 0

While I agree that a proper definition of epistemic agent is to be actively pursued, I don't think that a lack of such definition is to be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of scientific mosaic. After all, it is inevitable in any system of definition to have term which rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms. No matter how complex the system of definitions is, it must eventually use some undefined terms, unless of course it uses fundamental terms that are cross-defined, i.e. where x is used to define y, while y is used to define x. So I do not find it advisable to consider the absence of a certain definition as an obstacle for accepting some other definition.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Paul Patton

58 months ago

Score 0

Since I wrote my original comment, I have proposed a definition of epistemic agent, which is now under consideration for acceptance. I think we do have 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. That being the case, I drop my objection and support the acceptance of this definition.

Permalink

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

William Rawleigh

55 months ago

Score 0

I think that regardless of whether https://scie...to-2019-0014 is accepted that this modification should be accepted. The fact is that the community has been referring to 'epistemic agents' for some time now, and it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic - propositions don't exist in a vacuum, after all. We've already accepted the revised question-theory ontology on the basis of de facto acceptance so I don't see any reason this should be different. I support accepting this modification.

Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.