Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Revision as of 01:13, 6 November 2018 by Hakob Barseghyan (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.

Title Reformulating the Second Law
Resource Type journal article
Author(s) Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan, Paul Patton
Year 2017
URL https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158
Journal Scientonomy
Volume 1
Pages 29-39

Abstract

The current formulation of the second law is flawed since it does not specify the causal relations between the outcomes of theory assessment and the actual acceptance/unacceptance of a theory; it merely tells us that a theory was assessed by the method employed at the time. We propose a new formulation of the second law: “If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.” This new formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. Also, this new formulation is not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted. Finally, we outline what inferences an observational scientonomist can make regarding theory assessment outcomes from the record of accepted theories.

Theories

Here are all the theories formulated in Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017):

TheoryTypeFormulationFormulated In
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionA method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.2017
Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionIt is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.2017
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.2017
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveIf a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of a Single Contender (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of Two Contenders (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories.2017
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.2017

Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested in Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017):

  • Sciento-2017-0004: Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.c3
  • Sciento-2017-0005: Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.
  • Sciento-2017-0006: Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.


References

  1. a b c  Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.