Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
{{Topic
|Question=What minimal set of inference rules (i.e. logic) is the minimum logic required for scientific change to occur?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=Understanding logic as a set The process of scientific change seem to require some rules of inference rules, which determine properties such as ''deducibility''to be possible. Some mechanisms This is highlighted in some of the current tenets of scientific changescientonomy, such as the [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Third Law]], make reference to logical properties, although [[Deducibility in Method Employment|the logic assumed in the formulation is not statedlaw of method employment]]. No matter what the logic used, it remains an open This raises a question as to : what the minimum possible minimal set of inference of rules must be accepted by a communityan epistemic agent, or assumed to be universal to all communitiesagents, to enable scientific change to occur given the current formulation of the Third Law. Would it be possible for a community mosaic with ''no'' accepted rules of inference whatsoever to exist, and undergo scientific change? Has this ever occurred historically?
|Parent Topic=Necessary Theories
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, Patrick Fraser,
|Formulated Year=2018
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018,|Prehistory=|History=|Current View=|Related Topics=Deducibility in Method Employment,
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
|Order=1
|Lower Order Elements=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
