Property:Formulation Text
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
O
Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A. +
Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]] are [[Explicit|explicit]], [[Implicit|implicit]], [[Question|question]] and [[Theory|theory]]. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agent]] are [[Epistemic Community|epistemic community]] and [[Individual Epistemic Agent|individual epistemic agent]]. +
The stance of [[Compatibility|compatibility]] can be taken towards an [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]]. +
The possible outcomes of theory assessment are ''satisfied'', ''not satisfied'', and ''inconclusive''. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]] are [[Compatibility|compatibility]], [[Norm Employment|norm employment]], [[Question Acceptance|question acceptance]], [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]] and [[Theory Use|theory use]]. +
An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must be accepted. +
[[Outcome Accept]] is a subtype of [[Outcome Inconclusive]], i.e. outcome inconclusive is a supertype of outcome accept. +
An outcome of theory assessment which allows for the theory to be accepted but doesn't dictate so. +
It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met. +
It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met. +
An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must not be accepted. +
The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. +
The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. +
The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. +
The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. +
P
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
Scientonomy does not postulate the existence of a universal and unchanging method of science; thus the fact that methods of science are changeable is not detrimental to the prospects of scientonomy. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
Science can be said to be socially constructed in several different senses (e.g. the contingency, nominalist, and reducibility theses). None of these preclude the possibility of scientonomy. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. +
When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. +
The ''possible mosaic split theorem'' follows as a deductive consequence of the second and zeroth laws. +
A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions. +
A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions. +
The discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections. +
The stances of [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]] and [[Theory Use|theory use]] can be taken towards a [[Theory|theory]]. +
The stance of [[Compatibility|compatibility]] can be taken towards an [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]]. +
''Pursuit'' is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through ''acceptance''. +
''Pursuit'' is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through ''acceptance''. +
Q
A topic of inquiry. +
A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry. +
There is such a thing as [[Question Acceptance|question acceptance]]. +
[[Question Acceptance]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of question acceptance. +
A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry. +
A [[Question|question]] can have subquestions. +
A [[Question|question]] can presuppose [[Theory|theories]]. +
There is such a thing as a [[Question|question]]. +
[[Question]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of question. +
An epistemic agent ''S'' considers a question ''Q'' pursuitworthy, if and
only if ''S'' accepts that it is worth finding a theory ''T'' that answers ''Q''. +
A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become accepted. +
The question rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan and Levesley in 2021 is tautological. +
A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become part of the mosaic. +
The question rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan, Levesley, and Pandey in 2023 is tautological. +
R
An agent takes theory ''A'' to be a reason for theory ''B'' ''iff'' the agent accepts that ''A''→''B'', employs ''ε'', and accepts (''ε'', ''A'', ''A''→''B'') →<sub>''ε''</sub> (Should accept ''B''). +
The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''. +
The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound. +
Scientonomy does not postulate the existence of a universal and unchanging method of science; thus the fact that methods of science are changeable is not detrimental to the prospects of scientonomy. +
If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change. +
Science can be said to be socially constructed in several different senses (e.g. the contingency, nominalist, and reducibility theses). None of these preclude the possibility of scientonomy. +
A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method. +
When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment. +
Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time. +
Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
S
Any change in the ''scientific mosaic'', i.e. a transition from one accepted ''theory'' to another or from one employed ''method'' to another. +
Any change in the ''scientific mosaic'', i.e. a transition from one accepted ''theory'' to another or from one employed ''method'' to another. +
A set of all accepted ''theories'' and employed ''methods''. +
A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent. +
A model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent. +
A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent. +
Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. +
[[Scientificity]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of scientificity. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual ''general'' mechanism of scientific change. +
A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual ''general'' mechanism of scientific change. +
Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use. +
Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use. +
Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. +
Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at ''all scales'' from the most minor transitions to the most major. +
Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found. +
Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction. +
Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction. +
Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions. +
Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions. +
A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit. +
A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit. +
It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals. +
It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals. +
Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at ''all scales'' from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found. +
A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit. +
It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals. +
Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions. +
Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction. +
Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use. +
Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at ''all scales'' from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found. +
A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit. +
Community A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over topic ''x'' ''iff'' community A delegates authority over topic ''x'' to exactly one community. +
Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to exactly one epistemic agent. +
Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question ''x'' ''iff'' A delegates authority over question ''x'' to exactly one epistemic agent. +
The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. +
The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. +
Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time. +
When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment. +
The ''split due to inconclusiveness'' theorem is a deductive consequence of the possible mosaic split theorem. +
All procedural methods are necessarily static. +
The ''static procedural methods'' theorem follows from the method rejection theorem. +
All substantive methods are necessarily dynamic. All procedural methods are necessarily static. +
A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
If 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. +
Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic. +
A discipline ''A'' is a subdiscipline of another discipline ''B'', ''iff'' the set of questions of ''A'', ''Q<sub>A</sub>'', is a proper subset of the questions of ''B'', ''Q<sub>B</sub>'', i.e. ''Q<sub>A</sub>'' ⸦ ''Q<sub>B</sub>''. +
A question ''Q'' is a subquestion of another question ''Q’'', iff any direct answer to ''Q'' is also a partial answer to ''Q’''. +
A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition. +
A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agent]] are [[Epistemic Community|epistemic community]] and [[Individual Epistemic Agent|individual epistemic agent]]. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]] are [[Explicit|explicit]], [[Implicit|implicit]], [[Question|question]] and [[Theory|theory]]. +
The subtypes of [[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stance]] are [[Compatibility|compatibility]], [[Norm Employment|norm employment]], [[Question Acceptance|question acceptance]], [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]] and [[Theory Use|theory use]]. +
[[Method]] is a subtype of [[Normative Theory]], i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method. +
The subtypes of [[Theory|theory]] are [[Definition|definition]], [[Descriptive Theory|descriptive theory]] and [[Normative Theory|normative theory]]. +
An agent takes theory ''A'' to be a sufficient reason for (accepting) theory ''B'' ''iff'' the following four conditions are met:
(1) The agent accepts ''A''.
(2) The agent accepts that ''A'' → ''B''.
(3) The agent employs ''ε''.
(4) The agent accepts (''ε'', ''A'', ''A''→''B'') →<sub>''ε''</sub> (Should accept ''B''). +
A theory becomes accepted by an agent, when an agent has a sufficient reason for accepting it. +
[[Compatibility]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility. +
[[Definition]] is a subtype of [[Theory]], i.e. theory is a supertype of definition. +
[[Descriptive Theory]] is a subtype of [[Theory]], i.e. theory is a supertype of descriptive theory. +
[[Epistemic Community]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Agent]], i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community. +
[[Explicit]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of explicit. +
[[Implicit]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of implicit. +
[[Individual Epistemic Agent]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Agent]], i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of individual epistemic agent. +
[[Method]] is a subtype of [[Normative Theory]], i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method. +
[[Norm Employment]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment. +
[[Normative Theory]] is a subtype of [[Theory]], i.e. theory is a supertype of normative theory. +
[[Question Acceptance]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of question acceptance. +
[[Question]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of question. +
[[Theory Acceptance]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance. +
[[Theory Pursuit]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit. +
[[Theory Use]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use. +
[[Theory]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory. +
An agent takes theory ''A'' to be supporting theory ''B'' ''iff'' the agent accepts ''A'' and accepts that ''A''→''B''. +
A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected. +
The ''synchronism of method rejection'' theorem is a deductive consequence of the method rejection theorem and the third law. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
The employment of new methods can ''be'' but is not ''necessarily'' a result of the acceptance of new theories. +
A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected. +
A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed. +
T
The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological. +
Barseghyan's original second law is tautological. +
The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological. +
Harder's zeroth law is tautological. +
Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic. +
An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. +
The first law suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 is tautological. +
An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods. +
The first law for methods suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 is tautological. +
An employed norm remains employed in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. +
The first law for norms suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 is tautological. +
An accepted question remains accepted in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. +
The first law for questions suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 is tautological. +
An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories. +
The first law for theories suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 is tautological. +
An accepted theory remains accepted in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. +
The first law for theories suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 is tautological. +
If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown. +
The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological. +
A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic. +
A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic. +
A question becomes accepted only if all of its epistemic presuppositions are accepted and it is accepted that the question is answerable. +
If a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain. +
The law of theory demarcation as formulated by Sarwar and Fraser in 2018 is not tautological. +
The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time. +
Barseghyan's original second law is tautological. +
If 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. +
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) +
The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. +
At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other. +
Harder's zeroth law is tautological. +
A set of propositions that attempt to describe something. +
A set of propositions. +
A theory is said to be accepted if it is taken as the best available description of its object. +
A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question. +
An accepted theory is a scientific theory that is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object. +
A theory is said to be accepted if it is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object. +
There is such a thing as [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]]. +
[[Theory Acceptance]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance. +
A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question. +
A [[Theory|theory]] is an answer to a [[Question|question]]. +
The possible outcomes of theory assessment are ''accept'', ''not accept'', and ''inconclusive''. +
The possible outcomes of theory assessment are ''satisfied'', ''not satisfied'', and ''inconclusive''. +
The possible outcomes of theory assessment are ''satisfied'', ''not satisfied'', and ''inconclusive''. +
There is such a thing as [[Theory Decay|theory decay]]. +
[[Theory Decay]] is a subtype of [[Element Decay]], i.e. element decay is a supertype of theory decay. +
A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. +
There is such a thing as a [[Theory|theory]]. +
[[Theory]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Element]], i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory. +
A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development. +
[[Theory Pursuit]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit. +
A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development. +
A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. +
The ''theory rejection'' theorem is a deductive consequence of the compatibility corollary and the first law. +
The ''theory rejection'' theorem is a deductive consequence of the first and zeroth laws. +
The theory rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 is tautological. +
A theory becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the theory become part of the mosaic. +
The theory rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 is tautological. +
A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application. +
[[Theory Use]] is a subtype of [[Epistemic Stance]], i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use. +
A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application. +
If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown. +
An epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool ''iff'' there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. +
U
The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. +
The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible. +
W
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for ''pursuitworthiness'' rather than ''acceptability''. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
The encyclopedia editors should be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. If the additional required changes are ''implicit'' in the suggested modification, the editors should create and alter encyclopedia pages to ensure that the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge is properly documented; if it is conceivable to accept the modification ''without'' accepting the ripple effect change in question, the editors should register these changes as new suggested modifications so that the community can discuss and evaluate them in an orderly fashion. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
The discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections. +
The commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations in the comments. By default, the new formulation should bear the original author’s name, unless the author decides to give credit to those who significantly contributed to the new reformulation. +
Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
# documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
# scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
# publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
# evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached. +
