Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 00:46, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Though I agree with you that error should always be relative to an epistemic agent and their employed methods -- and that the proposed notion of error is distinct from absolute error -- I do wonder whether further distinction, accounting for instances of honest error and misconduct, would further improve our understanding of these shifts in theory acceptance.)
  • 00:32, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (I agree that we should accept the definition of error, stating that an epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method. One of the main goals of observational scientonomy is to develop a Tree of Knowledge providing comprehensive documentation of individual mosaics and their changes through time. In order to do this effectively, we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accep...)
  • 17:21, 24 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #172 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012
  • 05:43, 24 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (In his paper, Alliksaar argues for the acceptance of a distinction between theories’ ontological and phenomenological claims, which could be used to more precisely determine whether or not a theory is (or has been) accepted. I do indeed think this distinction has the potential to serve observational scientonomy. However, I remain skeptical of the interpretation put forth on meteorology’s acceptance of classical theories, even if that acceptance is taken to be purely phenomenological. Alliksa...)
  • 05:40, 24 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (In his paper, Alliksaar argues for the acceptance of a distinction between theories’ ontological and phenomenological claims, which could be used to more precisely determine whether or not a theory is (or has been) accepted. I do indeed think this distinction has the potential to serve observational scientonomy. However, I remain skeptical of the interpretation put forth on meteorology’s acceptance of classical theories, even if that acceptance is taken to be purely phenomenological. Alliksaa...)
  • 00:39, 24 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0002 (I agree that we should accept the law of question acceptance. For in order to practically accept, pursue, or employ theories answering questions, we must be able to demarcate those questions which are acceptable. For purposes of mapping belief systems, not only do we need to be able to accept questions without incurring combinatorially explosive/restrictive issues of presupposition, but we need a law of question acceptance which pragmatically restricts the set of all possibly acceptable quest...)
  • 23:40, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification looks to lay the foundation for a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. This is an important area to develop as current scientonomic understanding of the matter is indeed lacking. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in scientonomy would make the acceptance of scientificity as an epistemic stance premature at this juncture. The three stances accepted in scientonomy - acceptance, use, and pursuit - are...)
  • 23:34, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. Since, however, the discussion over whether or not to accept scien...)
  • 21:21, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification proposes that scientificity is an epistemic stance agents can take towards theories. Inherent in the suggestion is that the stance can be taken at any time and in any context towards a theory. Moreover, the modification raises several prudent questions to be accepted, namely what scientificity is and whether it is a stance that can be taken towards methods and questions, as well as theories. At first glance, the modification appears simple and useful for evaluatin...)
  • 03:19, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 02:59, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (The suggested modification proposes a further qualification of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities. Assuming the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted and the existence of sub-communities is also accepted, the modification puts forward that epistemic communities can constitute a non-epistemic community, or at least be a sub-group within the larger non-epistemic group. In light of the pertinent example of Google, it seems immedia...)
  • 18:19, 22 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #161 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #162 on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005
  • 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #164 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013
  • 11:52, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #163 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
  • 18:59, 19 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 15:56, 18 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in s...)
  • 03:11, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
  • 03:08, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
  • 00:03, 17 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0001 (I agree that the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition should be accepted. The role of presupposition acceptance necessary to subsequent question acceptance -- as outlined by the law of question acceptance -- diverges from the notion of “supposition” central to the analysis of argument structures in logic. Whereas a question may only be accepted if all its epistemic presuppositions are accepted, an argument could very well be deemed logically valid without the ac...)
  • 19:52, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (The historical cases discussed by Patton and Machado-Marques show convincingly that instances of scientific error handling are in full accord with ''the theory rejection theorem'', currently accepted in scientonomy. Specifically, they show that the rejection of an erroneously accepted theory is a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories. I fully agree with their treatment of scientific error. My verdict: '''accept'''.)
  • 19:45, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Historians and philosophers customarily speak of scientific errors, yet the notion itself still has no accepted scientonomic definition. Building on the earlier unpublished essay by Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu, Patton and Machado-Marques suggest a definition of ''Error'' that fills in this gap. The definition, I believe, succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method. As such, this not...)
  • 18:38, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (Given the seemingly numerous historical cases of lost and rediscovered knowledge, it seems as though some accepted theories and questions sometimes stop being accepted without any deliberation on the agent's part. This is what the author calls ''element decay''. Therefore, it is important to inquire whether such a decay of theories and questions actually takes place in the process of scientific change. I believe, the author does an excellent job showing that locating actual instances of eleme...)
  • 18:23, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0006 (A scientonomic account of the notion of ''discipline'' was long overdue. The question of how the notion of ''discipline'' (and, consequently, ''discipline acceptance'' and ''discipline rejection'') can be cashed out in terms of more basic epistemic elements, such as theories and questions, has been raised several years ago. Yet, despite numerous discussions on the subject, this is the first published scientonomic paper to provide such an account. The paper suggests a number of definitions tha...)
  • 15:04, 11 October 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (Following a series of discussions (mostly outside of this encyclopedia page), it seems that there are no objections to this modification. Thus, we can consider the matter settled.)
  • 14:37, 11 October 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Since the modification tries to fix an obvious drawback of my original definition, it is not surprising that it hasn't raised any objections. We can consider the matter settled.)
  • 02:51, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (This is the other modification that I am uncomfortable with, and my reasons here are quite similar to those I cited for rejecting 2019-0007. Let me raise another problem here, though: say we have a modification that gets accepted after rigorous debate, and everyone thinks that it is excellent. Now, after a few months, a new paper suggests a modification that proposes to replace the former. Assume that at this time the members of the scientonomic community are exceptionally busy and no one bot...)
  • 02:43, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0007 (This is one of two modifications that I am most uncomfortable with. The point of science in my view is to unearth truth. Voting is an inappropriate way of doing so. As a practical matter, though, I can see that we need to stimulate discussion, have a way of deciding on what should be accepted, etc. So what I will say below addresses some of these worries. We need to keep in mind who votes and how many people vote. It was suggested in the paper that everyone gets the chance to vote. Though I...)
  • 02:29, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and add a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite...)
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #150 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003
  • 02:28, 12 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (Ameer raises an important question: should those who refer to a certain modification cite the modification's original paper, or the paper with commentaries on that modification, or both? As things stand, we don't have much choice but to cite the original paper and a a reference to the respective discussion page of the encyclopedia. However, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted and commentaries are published in separate papers, we will be able to also cite t...)
  • 02:26, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0006 (This sounds pretty reasonable to me. I suggest accepting this modification.)
  • 02:25, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0005 (We should accept this modification, though this should not come at the expense of modification 2019-0002.)
  • 02:23, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (I am not sure what a "book prize" is. This sounds like a prize for writing a book, but that is not what is intended here. I recommend changing the name to something that more closely resembles what the prize is for. I am witholding judgment on this modification until further discussion. Also, and this is a completely separate suggestion, it may be useful if everyone who has an account on the Encyclopedia received a monthly email that talked about the new comments made to the modifications, e...)
  • 02:16, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0003 (I have some questions about this. Say person X proposes a modification and person Y proposes a change to it that everyone agrees should be made. X may then give credit to Y, and so the latter's name also appears on the modification. Yet, when other scholars write papers that utilize this modification, what should do they cite? Should they cite the original paper? Alternatively, if modification 2019-0002 is accepted, do they cite the co-authored paper (published in either the journal or an edi...)
  • 02:11, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0002 (I think this definitely provides a much needed incentive. I think it is better if the work is published in edited collections than in the scientonomy journal. There are two reasons for this preference: (1) Edited collections broaden the audience of the scientonomic work. People who do not read ordinary scientonomy journal are unlikely to read a commentary on specific modifications in that journal. Rather, having edited collections, which I presume will be published by external publishers, inc...)
  • 02:03, 12 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0001 (This seems like a perfectly fine suggestion. After all, if the acceptance of an idea (modification) depends on the discussion in these comments and communal consensus, then asking the reviewers to evaluate papers on whether they are acceptable (in the technical sense) seems besides the point. Hence, I suggest accepting this modificaiton.)
  • 22:57, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0013 (I think this modification should be accepted. The authors clearly show that in clinical epidemiology studies that relax one or more of the requirements of the randomized control trials (RCT) can be accepted provided that studies on the same topic that satisfy the RCT requirements have not been performed. I wish to make two comments. First, the authors claim that they are using a "conservative approach" in their use of the indicators. Specifically, they claim that "each of the studies discuss...)
  • 03:22, 11 June 2020 Kye Palider talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The way you talk about scientificity as "legitimate (i.e., potentially acceptable)" or "illegitimate (i.e., in principle unacceptable)" seems to equate scientificity with acceptability. Acceptability in the modal sense where if the appropriate evidence were to present itself, then that theory would become accepted. Are they the same thing? If they are, then acceptability is certainly a universal notion that can be applied to virtually all eras and agents. If not, then how does scientificity d...)
  • 02:29, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0019 (I think that the discussion of this modifications should be postponed until we have a verdict on modification 2018-0013. I believe that to recommend that it should not be accepted is a little hasty. Rather, the question of whether it should be accepted arises only after the status of modification 2018-0013 is resolved. Consequently, my recommendation is to withhold judgment at this stage.)
  • 02:25, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (I agree that since this law is non-tautological, it is a significant improvement over the previous understanding of the way compatibility works in scientific change. Thereofore, I recommend that this modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:21, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (Therefore, my suggestion is that the modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:21, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0017 (This modification claims that compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike. The previous definition claimed that this stance could be taken only towards theories. But we now recognize that this may hold between theories-theories, theories-methods, theories-questions, methods-methods, methods-questions, and questions-questions. The use of the term "elements" captures all of these possibilities. It is also neutral to the the addition of new epistemi...)
  • 02:11, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (I agree with both reasons that (1) the existence of compatibility criteria suggests the existence of the stance of compatibility, and that (2) this stance is in principle different from the other stances. I therefore also agree that this modification should be accepted.)
  • 02:00, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (I agree that until the discussion about the law of demarcation needs to be postponed until we have a consensus on what needs to be done with modification 2018-0013. If the modification is not accepted, then this law would also remain unaccepted. If the modification is accepted, then the question about whether this law is acceptable can be asked. In the meantime, then, my position is to withold judgment.)
  • 01:48, 11 June 2020 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (Thank you, Paul and Hakob, for your comments. I agree that the concept would greatly improve if it were properly defined. Yet, just as providing a criteria of demarcation is notoriously difficult, defining scientificity is likewise challenging. Nonetheless, I would like to suggest that we can intuitively understand 'scientificity' as relating to a community's notions of legitimacy or illigitimacy of theories, methods, or quesitons. I concede that the use of the term "scientificity" was imprud...)
  • 02:47, 4 June 2020 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015 (Following a series of communal discussions, it is apparent that there is a communal consensus that the modification is to be accepted.)
  • 21:23, 17 May 2020 William Rawleigh talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0014 (I agree with Hakob. The distinction between individual and communal agents as being distinct subtypes of epistemic agents, as well as the question Patton opens up with regards to the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents, are of criti...)
  • 21:14, 17 May 2020 William Rawleigh talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0009 (I think that regardless of whether https://scientowiki.com/Modification:Sciento-2019-0014 is accepted that this modification should be accepted. The fact is that the community has been referring to 'epistemic agents' for some time now, and it's de fact...)
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:Log/comments"