Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 04:41, 20 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (At first blush, one might think that there is no need to differentiate compatibility from acceptance, since the compatibility corollary already requires that elements of the mosaic be compatible with one another. However, Fraser and Sarwar argue convin...)
  • 04:27, 20 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (The authors argue convincingly that the Zeroth Law of scientific change is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility. A compatibility corollary follows from this definition and the observation that the elem...)
  • 16:56, 12 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (I don't deny that communities can consist of subcommunities, but I claim that without an explanation of what it means for Community B to be a subcommunity of community A this claim is devoid of all content. Suppose, for example, I claim that the commun...)
  • 16:03, 12 February 2020 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (Since I wrote my original comment, I have proposed a definition of epistemic agent, which is now under consideration for acceptance. I think we do have sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scie...)
  • 22:28, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0020 (What I said in my commentary on modification 2018-0013, there doesn't seem to be sufficient reason for accepting ''scientificity'' as a ''universal'' stance. Since I think that scientificity is a ''local'' stance, I d...)
  • 22:21, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0019 (This modification assumes that scientificity is a universal epistemic stance. As I indicated in my commentary on modification 2018-0013, I don't think we have sufficient evidence to think that scientificity is a unive...)
  • 22:14, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Since compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of ''all'' types, we need a better definition that the one we currently accept. Fraser and Sarwar's definition, I believe, is a great improvement over the current one. My p...)
  • 22:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (I agree with Fraser and Sarwar that if we accept the existence of a certain type of criteria, we should also accept the respective stance. Since we accept the existence of ''compatibility criteria'' - and this strikes me as unproblematic - then we shou...)
  • 22:01, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Since I don't believe we have sufficient evidence for accepting that ''scientificity'' is a universal stance, I am not sure we need a law to explain how that stance obtains. So my position is that we should not accept this modification. That being sai...)
  • 21:56, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (A quick follow up on my previous comment. It is currently accepted that the criteria that make up a method are threefold - acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria, and demarcation criteria. If we end up not accepting Sarwar and Fraser's modificatio...)
  • 21:46, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (if I understand it correctly, Sarwar and Fraser's suggestion amounts to accepting the idea that scientificity is a ''universal'' stance that can be taken towards theories. This assumes that ''scientificity'' as a stance is found not only in the post-ei...)
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #119 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 21:08, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 21:07, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #118 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 21:07, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (So here is where we seem to stand on this modification. There seem to be a consensus that ''some'' distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is necessary. This much seems to be clear. However, Overgaard's definitions of the concepts h...)
  • 20:49, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (While I agree with Paul that there is more to be said about the conditions under which the relationship between sub- and super-community can obtain, this doesn't really concern the gist of Overgaard's modification. The only thing Overgaard is claiming...)
  • 20:35, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0012 (To sum up the discussions concerning this modification that happen primarily off-line: the community seems to have no objections against this modification. It is taken as given these days that technological knowledge can be and often is accepted by dif...)
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #114 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (This modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge. Once we accept that the current zeroth law is a tautology, it becomes clear that we need a new law explaining the mechanism of compatibility, i.e. a law stating...)
  • 18:54, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (This modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge. Once we accept that the current zeroth law is a tautology, it becomes clear that we need a new law explaining the mechanism of compatibility, i.e. a law stating...)
  • 18:44, 11 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (This modification comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions in our original theory. The current zeroth law was meant to highlight the fact that consistency and compatibility are not the same thing. While that is all well and good, we missed the fact...)
  • 13:50, 3 February 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (This is a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology. For several years, we have been talking about epistemic agents taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements, but the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear. Patton does...)
  • 15:49, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (While I agree that a proper definition of ''epistemic agent'' is to be actively pursued, I don't think that a lack of such definition is to be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of ''scientific mosaic''. After all, it is...)
  • 01:56, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0008 (This is to record that a consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside this discussion page. It was also agreed that Paul's concerns raised above are justified: when a modification is introduced to the body of scienton...)
  • 01:12, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0010 (This is to record that the consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. It has been agreed that any element or stance can be explicit or implicit.)
  • 00:53, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0011 (This is to record that the consensus regarding this modification has emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. It has been agreed that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between ''explicable-i...)
  • 00:28, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0007 (This is to record that the consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. The consensus has manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto.)
  • 00:10, 3 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0005 (This is just to note that the acceptance of this modification took place primarily off-line, outside of this discussion page. The consensus on this modification has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May...)
  • 23:47, 2 September 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0006 (This is just to capture that following a series of off-line discussions, a consensus has emerged concerning this modification. The consensus has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, wh...)
  • 03:36, 4 March 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (My verdict is to accept, but with strong reservations. Items of the scientonomic ontology, such as stances, are typically intended to identify features of science, or more generally of knowledge systems, that are universally applicable across communiti...)
  • 03:35, 4 March 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #103 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013
  • 03:27, 4 March 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (My verdict is to accept, but with strong reservations. Scientonomic concepts, such as stances, are typically intended to identify features of science, or more generally of knowledge systems, that are universally applicable across communities and over h...)
  • 03:51, 18 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0012 (I believe that the modification should be accepted. Mirkin presents arguments that technological knowledge, like scientific knowledge, can be accepted and not just used, and argues that there are no good prior reasons to suppose that technological know...)
  • 03:27, 18 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0011 (I believe that the modification should be accepted. The proposal distinguishes explicit knowledge that has been openly formulated as propositions by an agent, and implicit knowledge that hasn't been so formulated. The only sense in which this is proble...)
  • 21:54, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (There are some problems with the proposed definitions, and which I believe must be addressed before they can be accepted. To address some of the problems raised above regarding the vagueness of a 'collective intentionality to know the world', I suggest...)
  • 20:39, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0010 (I support the acceptance of this modification. As previously conceived, only methods/methodologies could be either implicitly or explicitly employed. This modification opens the way for any epistemic stance or element to be either implicit or explicit,...)
  • 18:29, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0008 (I support the acceptance of this definition. However, its acceptance will require making significant changes to our accepted definitions of ‘normative theory’ and ‘employment’. First ‘norm’ is simply a shortened way of referring to ‘norm...)
  • 18:16, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #92 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0008
  • 18:14, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (While I support the eventual acceptance of this definition, I believe it is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; 'epistemic agent', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy. I will be proposing a definition of 'epistemic agen...)
  • 18:09, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #93 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009
  • 18:08, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0007 (I support the acceptance of this definition of 'definition'. The main feature that makes 'definition' potentially problematic is that it is being treated as a sub-type of theory, despite the fact that there is a controversy over whether definitions can...)
  • 17:51, 17 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0006 (I support the acceptance of 'Epistemic Elements -Questions and theories'. A definition of both 'Question' and 'Theory' has already been accepted by the scientonomic community. A definition for 'definition' is currently under review. Thus, much within t...)
  • 22:14, 15 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0005 (I support this modification because I believe it does clarify the scientific understanding of methods as normative theories that can be both accepted and employed. As a practical matter, accepting this definition will require a whole series of changes...)
  • 21:50, 15 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (I am opposed to accepting this new definition at present, because it contains a term, 'epistemic agent', which has not yet been defined within scientonomy. I will be proposing a definition of 'epistemic agent' in association with a paper currently unde...)
  • 21:29, 15 February 2019 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0008 (While I support the inclusion of norms and norm employment in our ontology, I am opposed to accepting this definition, because I feel it is unnecessary. The same purpose could be accomplished more simply by making small changes to our accepted definiti...)
  • 01:55, 29 January 2019 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0012 (While clearly more work needs to be done to understand the intricate relationships between technological and scientific knowledge, I agree with Mirkin that technological knowledge is not merely about ''use'': there is such a thing as ''accepted'' techn...)
  • 16:44, 4 November 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (I will try here to sum up the outcome of the numerous offline discussions we've had on this modification in the last year and a half. 1. Concerning the notions of singular and multiple authority delegations: there haven't been any objections and all t...)
  • 22:19, 1 October 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0003 (Paul's comment raises an important question which can be also applied to other epistemic stances, specifically ''theory acceptance''. Just as question acceptance, theory acceptance too seems to allow for three values: * (clearly) accepted; * (clearly)...)
  • 17:22, 29 September 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0004 (We have already accepted questions as epistemic elements towards which epistemic agents can take stances. The stance of question acceptance, at least, seems clear. The question of the 'mechanism' of question acceptance (provided the term 'mechanism' i...)
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:Log/comments"