Comments log
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a log of comments.
(newest | oldest) View (newer 20 | older 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)- 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...)
- 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...)
