Property:Summary
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text. It links to pages that use the form .
M
Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from ''all'' accepted theories and employed methods but only from ''some''. +
Accept a new taxonomy for ''theory'', ''normative theory'', ''descriptive theory'' to reintroduce normative propositions (such as those of ethics or methodology) to the scientific mosaic. +
Accept the notion of ''authority delegation''. +
Provided that the notion of ''authority delegation'' is accepted, accept the notions of ''mutual authority delegation'' and ''one-sided authority delegation'' as subtypes of authority delegation. +
Accept new definitions for ''theory'', ''normative theory'', and ''descriptive theory''. Also, modify the definition of ''methodology'' to reflect these changes. +
Accept a new ontology of scientific change where the two fundamental elements are theories - both descriptive and normative - and methods. +
Accept that licenses to teach [''ʾijāzāt''] are reliable indicators of which texts were considered authoritative in the Medieval Arabic scientific mosaic (MASM) in c. 750-1258 CE in the Abbasid caliphate. Thus, a proposition can be said to be accepted in MASM if the evidence of the licenses to teach [''ʾijāzāt''] indicates so. +
Accept [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|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''. +
Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. +
Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. +
Accept the definitions of the following subtypes of ''authority delegation'': ''singular authority delegation'', ''multiple authority delegation'', ''hierarchical authority delegation'', and ''non-hierarchical authority delegation''. +
Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Monet: A work claimed to be by Monet is authentic if it is considered authentic by the Wildenstein Institute. +
Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Picasso: a work claimed to be by Picasso is authentic if it is has been certified as authentic by both Maya Widmaier-Picasso and Claude Ruiz-Picasso. +
Accept the following reconstruction of the authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Modigliani between 1997 and 2015: a work claimed to be by Modigliani is authentic iff (1) it is in the Ceroni catalogue raisonné or (2) if it is not in catalogue and has been certified as authentic by Marc Restellini. +
Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Renoir: a work claimed to be by Renoir is authentic iff (1) it has been certified as authentic by the Wildenstein institute or (2) it has not been dismissed by the Wildenstein institute and it is included in the Bernheim-Jeune catalogue. +
Accept a new taxonomy for ''group'' and its two sub-types - ''accidental group'', and ''community''. +
Accept that communities can consist of other communities, i.e. that there is such a thing as a ''sub-community''. +
Provided that the definition of ''community'' is accepted, accept new definitions of ''epistemic community'' and ''non-epistemic community'' as sub-types of ''community''. +
Provided that the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted, accept that a non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities. +
Accept the definition of ''question'' as a topic of inquiry. +
Accept the ontology of epistemic elements with ''theories'', ''methods'', and ''questions'' as distinct epistemic elements. +
Accept that the epistemic stance that can be taken by an epistemic agent towards a question is ''question acceptance'' (the opposite is ''unacceptance''), where ''question acceptance'' is defined as "a question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry". +
Accept the questions of ''the mechanism question acceptance'' and ''indicators of question acceptance'' as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. +
Accept the new definitions of ''method'' as a set of criteria for theory evaluation and ''methodology'' as a normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. +
Accept the new ontology of epistemic elements with, theories and questions are the two basic epistemic elements where and each theory is an attempt to answer a certain question, theories can be of three types – descriptive, normative, or definitions, and methods are a subtype of normative theory. +
Accept the definition of ''definition'' as a statement of the meaning of a term. +
Accept the definition of ''norm employment''. +
Accept the new definition of ''scientific mosaic'' as a set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by the epistemic agent. +
Accept that epistemic stances of all types can be taken explicitly and/or implicitly and that epistemic elements of all types can be explicit and/or implicit. +
Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable. +
Accept that propositional technological knowledge – i.e. technological questions, theories, and methods – can be part of a mosaic. +
Accept ''scientificity'' as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept several questions concerning the definition of scientificity and the applicability of scientificity to other epistemic elements, such as methods and questions, as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. +
Accept the ''law of theory demarcation'' as a new scientonomic axiom. Also accept questions concerning indicators of scientificity as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. +
Accept the definition of ''compatibility'', as the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also replace the zeroth law with the ''compatibility corollary''. +
Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general. +
Accept the new definition of compatibility criteria as criteria for determining whether two ''elements'' are compatible or incompatible. +
Accept the new dynamic law of compatibility which specifies how exactly two elements become to be considered compatible or incompatible within a mosaic. +
Accept the new definition of theory acceptance which makes explicit that accepted theories are a subset of scientific theories. +
Accept the ''demarcation-acceptance synchronism'' theorem. +
Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for ''pursuitworthiness'' rather than ''acceptability''. +
Accept that 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. +
Accept that the commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations. Also accept that, 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. This should be decided collegially by the author, the commentators, and the editors on a case-by-case basis. +
Accept that an annual book prize is to be offered for extensive participation on the encyclopedia. The winner(s) are to be decided by the encyclopedia editors. +
Accept that star-ratings are to be introduced for commentators who comment on suggested modifications on the encyclopedia. +
Accept that the encyclopedia editors are to be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. Also accept that 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. +
Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period. Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted - a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be. +
Accept that a countdown mechanism is to be introduced, where a modification is accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication. +
Accept the definition of implication as a logical transition from one theory to another. +
Accept the new definitions of ''sufficient reason'', ''reason'', ''support'', and ''normative inference''. +
Accept the sufficient reason theorem and its deduction from the definition of ''sufficient reason'' and the ''second law''. +
