Comments log

This is a log of comments.

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

• 16:40, 7 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (At the 2023 scientonomy workshop, it was determined that this modification presupposes the acceptance of 2018-0013, even though the statement of the modification in the original journal article and its initial description on the encyclopedia page failed to indicate this. Based on the comments on the modification left by Ameer Sarwar, Hakob Barseghyan, Tessa Ng, and Josh Allen, the participants unanimously agreed that the modification presupposed 2018-0013. This now meant that the modification...)
• 16:38, 7 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The modification was discussed during the 2023 workshop. It was noted that there is a forthcoming paper on local stances, which may help to address some of the community’s concerns and questions about this modification. Hakob Barseghyan suggested that the stance of scientificity is perhaps best understood as a local stance. Gregory Rupik wondered if there are any global stances, i.e. whether even acceptance can be said to be a global stance. To this, Hakob Barsgehyan responded that, unlike al...)
• 15:28, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (At the 2023 Scientonomy Workshop, the authors of the modification introduced some clarifications before it was discussed and voted upon. Namely, Hakob Barseghyan withdrew his comment about concerns about funding the book prize, and Jamie Shaw clarified that the line about a “CV-worthy line” was specifically catered towards incentivizing early-career scholars. The authors also indicated that continual commentating could allow for several prizes in various categories to reward more participants...)
• 15:28, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #201 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004
• 15:27, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (At the 2023 Scientonomy Workshop, the authors of the modification introduced some clarifications before it was discussed and voted upon. Namely, Hakob Barseghyan withdrew his comment about concerns about funding the book prize, and Jamie Shaw clarified that the line about a “CV-worthy line” was specifically catered towards incentivizing early-career scholars. The authors also indicated that continual commentating could allow for several prizes in various categories to reward more participants...)
• 16:19, 25 February 2023 Grace Shan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (I believe that the phenomenon of element decay is viable as a theoretical concept, and I think this paper has brought to light the pursuit-worthiness of the topic. However, I believe the actual historical existence of element decay needs to be substantiated by further observational studies following this inaugural one (which was excellently researched). The task of finding positive evidence in observational scientonomy—for example, indicators of theory acceptance or indicators of collective i...)
• 16:37, 30 October 2022 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2022-0002 (I believe this is a very welcome addition to scientonomic body of knowledge. Rawleigh makes a strong case for the new law of method employment, which has clear advantages over the current third law. I agree with Rawleigh, that there doesn't seem to be any prima facie reasons to think that the mechanism of method employment should be somehow different from the mechanism of norm employment in general. Thus, until shown otherwise, I believe we should accept Rawleigh's formulation of the law of n...)
• 20:53, 21 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0010 (Having read “Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology,“ I see no issues with the definitions proposed by Palider and I think they constitute an important addition which will prove useful in further scientonomic research. In fact, it is because they have already seen use in scientonomic scholarship that, in the absence of any dissent from the community, it seems key to accept these definitions. Namely, the specific formulations of “reason” and “sufficient reason” provide much of the basis for th...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 14:45, 18 October 2022 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (I agree with both of the previous commentators: this doesn't seem to be the best solution, at least at this stage. In addition to the reasons mentioned by previous commentators, I think the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown. Verdict: Reject)
• 20:24, 14 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0001 (As Carlin points out, there is clear value in distinguishing logical and epistemic presuppositions in scientonomic diagrams, and it is also necessary to distinguish between them based on the proposed Law of Question Acceptance. For example, if we are diagramming a historical case studies that involve instances of actual documented question acceptance, we cannot necessarily excise certain logical presuppositions of a question but we must indicate their separation from the epistemic presupposit...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 20:09, 14 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (I am also uncomfortable with this modification. Firstly, I fail to see how it meaningfully addresses one issue referenced in the preamble: “Specifically, people may not want to accept the modification, but may not want to object to it explicitly for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people may not wish to be seen as impeding the modification's acceptance.” This concept that the lack of explicit objection not being the same as a total lack of objection/disagreement does not then squar...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
• 19:07, 29 September 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0009 (Clarifying that my verdict is to not accept the modification in its current state.)
• 22:03, 23 September 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0009 (I would be more comfortable accepting this modification if the boundaries on “logic” as put forth in Palider (2019) are better reflected in this definition itself. In Palider (2019), “logical” is defined as simply something “rule-governed” (Palider, 20). However, it is then stated that this notion of logic is a purely alethic one (20). The concept of an agent’s “rules of implication,” which would need to be accepted by that agent appears several times later in the paper without a definition (...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)