Difference between revisions of "Necessary Logic"
(Created page with "{{Topic |Question=What is the minimum logic required for scientific change to occur? |Topic Type=Descriptive |Description=Understanding logic as a set of inference rules, whic...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Topic | {{Topic | ||
| − | |Question=What is | + | |Question=What minimal set of inference rules (i.e. logic) is required for scientific change to occur? |
|Topic Type=Descriptive | |Topic Type=Descriptive | ||
| − | |Description= | + | |Description=The process of scientific change seem to require some rules of inference to be possible. This is highlighted in some of the current tenets of scientonomy, such as the [[The Third Law|the law of method employment]]. This raises a question: what minimal set of inference must be accepted by an epistemic agent, or assumed to be universal to all agents, to enable scientific change to occur. Would it be possible for a mosaic with ''no'' accepted rules of inference whatsoever to undergo scientific change? |
| − | |||
| − | |||
|Parent Topic=Necessary Theories | |Parent Topic=Necessary Theories | ||
| − | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Patrick Fraser | + | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Patrick Fraser |
|Formulated Year=2018 | |Formulated Year=2018 | ||
| − | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018 | + | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018 |
| − | |Related Topics=Deducibility in Method Employment | + | |Prehistory= |
| + | |History= | ||
| + | |Current View= | ||
| + | |Related Topics=Deducibility in Method Employment | ||
|Page Status=Stub | |Page Status=Stub | ||
| + | |Editor Notes= | ||
| + | |Order=1 | ||
| + | |Lower Order Elements= | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. | |Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. | ||
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:00, 17 October 2022
What minimal set of inference rules (i.e. logic) is required for scientific change to occur?
The process of scientific change seem to require some rules of inference to be possible. This is highlighted in some of the current tenets of scientonomy, such as the the law of method employment. This raises a question: what minimal set of inference must be accepted by an epistemic agent, or assumed to be universal to all agents, to enable scientific change to occur. Would it be possible for a mosaic with no accepted rules of inference whatsoever to undergo scientific change?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan and Patrick Fraser in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 March 2018 | It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018. | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Necessary Theories.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
