Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View ( | older 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 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...)
  • 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...)
  • 17:07, 29 September 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0003 (What does question unacceptance mean? Does it mean that the question is deemed an illegitimate topic of inquiry? Or simply that no community consensus exists regarding the legitimacy of the question? Hakob's example of the question of phlogiston's pro...)
  • 14:58, 28 September 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001 (A quick update on the status of this modification. Following a series of discussions with scientonomists over the past few months, we have come to a consensus: while the current definition seems to be amenable to further improvement (what definition is...)
  • 13:32, 27 September 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (A quick update on the state of this modification. We've had numerous discussions in the community concerning this modification and we have reached a consensus. 1. Patrick's point is taken: technically Will has shown that questions cannot be reduced t...)
  • 22:08, 20 August 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0004 (This modification too seems obvious to me. Provided that the previous modifications are accepted, I see no reason not to accept this one as well. Specifically, if we accept that questions can be accepted or unaccepted, then it becomes important to unde...)
  • 22:03, 20 August 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0003 (This suggested modification seems rather obvious to me. After all, the whole point of adding ''questions'' to the ontology of epistemic elements was that we can legitimately speak of a question being accepted by a certain agent at a certain time. For i...)
  • 21:54, 20 August 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001 (Two comments on Ameer's comment. 1. The discussion section of a modification is not an opportune place to suggest modifications to the modification. The first reason is that, in the scientonomic workflow we are trying to follow here, any modification...)
  • 21:51, 20 August 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #81 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001
  • 21:50, 20 August 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001 (Two comments on Ameer's comment. # The discussion section of a modification is not an opportune place to suggest modifications to the modification. The first reason is that, in the scientonomic workflow we are trying to follow here, any modification -...)
  • 10:23, 24 June 2018 William Rawleigh talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001 (Ameer, having not read your paper yet it's difficult for me to fully reply to your concern, however based on what you've said in your comment I think that specifying questions specifically as "topics of scientific inquiry" or as "scientific topics of i...)
  • 22:16, 22 May 2018 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0001 (I would like to propose a modest alteration to the definition of 'question,' which reads "a topic of inquiry." It is not clear from this definition that it is a topic of SCIENTIFIC inquiry. Although I understand that all questions would be under the um...)
  • 03:36, 22 May 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #76 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002
  • 02:39, 21 May 2018 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (Criticism 2: Irreducibility of questions to theories Rawleigh asserts that "the major step in interpreting the semantics [of the question] involved is shifting the content from the elements of the proposition to the status of the epistemic agent" (Raw...)
  • 01:55, 21 May 2018 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (I agree with Hakob that formal, logical treatment, though desirable, is not required in empirical science, including in Scientonomy. He is also correct in pointing out that the sort of criticism that characterizes most philosophical discourse, if appli...)
  • 01:20, 21 May 2018 Ameer Sarwar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (I agree with Hakob that)
  • 13:20, 18 May 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (I’d like to begin my response to Patrick Fraser's comment by calling attention to the distinction between two different tasks: 1. evaluating the formal structure of Will Rawleigh's argument for irreducibility of questions to theories/methods; 2. de...)
  • 13:19, 18 May 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #74 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002
  • 13:19, 18 May 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (I’d like to begin my response to Patrick Fraser's comment by calling attention to the distinction between two different tasks: 1. evaluating the formal structure of Will Rawleigh's argument for irreducibility of questions to theories/methods; 2. deci...)
  • 08:29, 17 May 2018 Patrick Fraser talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0002 (You move to accept questions as a distinct epistemic element, and argue this by attempting to show that questions exist, they are not theories, and they are not methods. However, is it not also possible that questions may be functions of both theories...)
  • 16:46, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can no...)
  • 16:46, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #71 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 16:45, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can not....)
  • 16:45, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #70 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 16:44, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can n...)
  • 16:28, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (I agree that the current definitions of authority delegation, mutual authority delegation, and one-sided authority delegation, despite their problems, are currently the best available such definitions. They should be accepted, although further work on...)
  • 16:24, 1 February 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (I agree with Paul that there might be more to the notion of mutual delegation than the suggested definition allows. Yet, I also think that we have to separate two issues: it's one thing to ask whether the suggested definition is flawless, it's another...)
  • 15:56, 31 January 2018 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (What has transpired in the past year is that, despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community. One indication of this is the fact that any discussion on the notion of ''community'' normally takes Overgaard'...)
  • 20:49, 29 November 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0005 (Agree with Jacob. Since the new formulation is accepted, there is no rationale for not accepting this modification.)
  • 17:34, 29 November 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (As the author of the previous formulation of the second law, I admit that it was far from perfect. For one, it sounded like a tautology which is not what the law of theory acceptance should do. Its second major flaw...)
  • 20:14, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (The concept that a community can consist of other communities seems reasonable. But I do not think that the current definition adequately captures the relationship that must exist between a community and its subcommunities, to make the subcommunity con...)
  • 20:13, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #63 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013
  • 20:06, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (The concept that a community can consist of other communities seems reasonable. But I do not think that the current definition adequately captures the relationship that must exist between a community and its subcommunities, to make the subcommunity con...)
  • 23:05, 4 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #50 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004
  • 22:52, 4 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While I agree with Paul Patton that it is a matter of observational scientonomy to locate cases of hierarchical authority delegation, I think the concept should be accepted as Mirka Loiselle pointed out the case of hierarchical authority delegation in...)
  • 22:44, 4 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Paul Patton expresses concern about condition 2 of authority delegation: "Mutual authority delegation is likely to pose more problems, since in such cases both the communities in question are likely to be epistemic communities, with theories and metho...)
  • 18:02, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While the concept of singular and multiple authority delegation seem useful additions to the authority delegation concept, the ideas of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation do not, because they posit as general categories structures o...)
  • 18:00, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #59 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007
  • 17:58, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While the concept of singular and multiple authority delegation seem useful additions to the authority delegation concept, the ideas of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation do not, because they posit as general categories structures o...)
  • 12:35, 4 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0005 (This follows from the new formulation. We should accept this modification.)
  • 12:33, 4 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (Since it is possible for a theory to satisfy the method of the time, yet remain unaccepted, there is a clear case in which theory acceptance is not causally connected to appraisal. Given the possible outcomes of theory assessment, this modification pro...)
  • 06:11, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (I believe this modification is a sound an impressive addition to the current scientonomic research and literature on authority delegation, and that delving into and fleshing out the various kinds of authority delegation, and what kind of delegation occ...)
  • 05:37, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 ("Knowing the world" was one of the offhand ideas that initially confused me when I read the paper, and I agree that it should be made clearer if the concept of epistemic community is to be accepted, which I think it should be. Regarding the inclusion o...)
  • 05:28, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Where I most agree with this modification is regarding the taxonomy of group, accidental group and community. Therefore, I do not agree with Max's proposed disregard of the accidental group category. I think having a taxonomy makes terms clearer, unles...)
  • 03:27, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This being said, regarding Hakob's comment above, given that these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions, perhaps the reservations I'm talking about as best as a future modification to this modification's proposed th...)
  • 03:24, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think before accepting this modification, I think a proper discussion is warranted here on the definition of a group. Is it right to smuggle in, with this taxonomy, that a group necessarily consists of two or more people? Especially considering that...)
  • 02:53, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (Overall, I agree with Max that this modification fits well within (what I believe ought to be) the purview of observational scientonomy. Even if this isn't an in-depth, comprehensive review of the MASM, I feel that this modification is worth accepting...)
  • 02:30, 3 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #51 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 02:30, 3 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (Test)
  • 20:54, 2 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Paul Patton is concerned about condition 2. Personally, I do not see it but perhaps I am missing something. For instance, Patton says: "Mutual authority delegation is likely to pose more problems, since in such cases both the communities in question...)
  • 17:47, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (I don't see any issue with epistemic communities enveloping religions as well as scientific communities. Given communities can exist within communities this doesn't create any problems (if the [Sciento-2017-0013] modification is accepted). If any furth...)
  • 17:42, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (Once again, I'm struggling to see the purpose of this clarification in terms of its sheer utility. If we accept this modification why not accept that accidental groups can consists of larger accidental groups and add that in as a separate modification?...)
  • 17:36, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (Assuming the previous modification is accepted, there seem to be no restrictions in place stopping a community from being made up of multiple communities. Verdict: Accept.)
  • 17:31, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups (as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but...)
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs deleted comment #45 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups(as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but t...)
  • 16:58, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (I agree with this modification. Given the lack of textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM. There seems to be no immediate or obvious alternative and insofar as cl...)
  • 02:15, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (If we accept this definition of ''epistemic community'', then we must also be able to answer the questions of what it means have the collective intentionality to "know the world"? Does the simple act of claiming that your community is attempting to kno...)
  • 01:42, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (That communities consist of sub-communities is an apt conclusion. I see no reason to reject the existence of sub-communities. The examples provided by Nicholas sufficiently demonstrate how one community can be a conglomeration of sub-communities. Verd...)
  • 20:55, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (There doesn't seem to be any reason for denying this. It seems almost trivial that a community can in principle consist of smaller communities. At the moment, the existence of these sub-communities doesn't strike me as problematic. I don't think we can...)
  • 20:48, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those unusual cases when a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its official publication. It is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unoffici...)
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #39 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those typical cases where a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its publication. it is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unofficially acc...)
  • 03:46, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict is also to '''accept''' the modification without qualms. Following the resolution of the paradox of normative propositions, there seems no good reason to exclude normative theories from the TSC, and many reasons why they should be included....)
  • 03:36, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Modern science involves specialization and a division of labor. Thus instances where scientific communities will rely on the expertise of other scientific communities are all pervasive. The two definitions given here for one-sided and mutual authority...)
  • 17:10, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (I support acceptance of the modification. The reason for modifying the definition of employed method requires a bit more explanation than was given. In the new second law, a theory may be accepted into the mosaic if its assessment is inconclusive. The...)
  • 16:30, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (When the TSC was formulated, the status of normative propositions in the mosaic was unclear. Now that the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed to accommodate normative propositions in the mosaic. 'T...)
  • 01:30, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict, too, is to accept this modification. We have an understanding of what Zoe means by "normative propositions", and I believe they certainly play a role in the process of scientific change. So why not adopt the belief that these normative prop...)
  • 01:25, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (I agree with Hakob here - if we're going to have any sort of conversation about whether or not any form of normative propositions exist in our scientonomic worldview, then we need to start from a definition. As is always the case, if we disagree later...)
  • 22:03, 1 February 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I agree with Paul that we need to accept the current definition to have something to work with, but we should also keep in mind that sometimes authority delegation seems to require an additional layer of filtering by the delegating community. Paul's ex...)
  • 18:02, 31 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (After the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, I see no obstacles for including ''normative propositions'' into the mosaic. The paradox was the reason why normative propositions (such as those of...)
  • 17:59, 31 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (These new definitions are an important addition to theoretical scientonomy. Since the paradox of normative propositions has been solved (see modification Sciento-2016-0001), we can now adjust our taxonomy to have a de...)
  • 21:23, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #27 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 21:23, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #28 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 21:22, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (My verdict is to accept the definition of authority delegation given, but I don’t accept all of the claims made for it in the paper. The concept of passive authority delegation as stated in the paper is clear, and may well be a valid one for describi...)
  • 19:57, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (Verdict: accept- the concept does work, and can be applied in some cases, such as the relationship between communities whose primary goal is epistemic and communities that have some other goal, for which knowledge is needed. But the concept of passive...)
  • 19:44, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #26 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 19:44, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (The concept of authority delegation as stated in the paper is clear, and may well be a valid one for describing some relationships between communities, but I suspect that given its current definition its value will be very limited. The relationship tha...)
  • 17:37, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I'm not sure that the current definition captures the complex relationship between interacting scientific communities. Theoretical physicists clearly regard the results of experimental physicists as critically relevant to assessing their theories. Expe...)
  • 19:49, 24 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (This modification introduces two very important concepts to the field of scientonomy - ''one-sided'' authority delegation and mutual authority delegation. We have been already actively using this terminology in our research, so it is time we openly acc...)
  • 19:16, 19 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (I see the distinction being made and if the community would feel more comfortable having the modification separated into two, then I see no reason not to do so. Clearly articulating the ontology and taxonomy of the TSC is very important for future rese...)
  • 21:20, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #23 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001
  • 21:20, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (This is ''italic'', and this is '''bold''', and this is a link)
  • 05:43, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I agree with Greg: this is a great contribution to the field of scientonomy. In fact, it is safe to say that this modification has already been tacitly accepted by our community, since many of us rely on the idea of authority delegation in our own rese...)
  • 05:39, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Concerning Greg's suggested "aesthetic" adjustment, I think we need to stick to explicitly mentioning ''methods and theories'' since "other elements of the mosaic of the time" may mean three different things: # accepted theories only; # other employed...)
  • 04:14, 18 January 2017 Gregory Rupik talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (This formulation of the third law makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance. (Verdict: '''accept'''.) I do have an alternative proposal for how this modified version of the law is formulated, however. The suggesti...)
  • 03:30, 18 January 2017 Gregory Rupik talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (Overgaard and Loiselle's contribution to Scientonomy, here, is a significant one. Not only does the paper identify and illustrate a phenomenon that is ubiquitous in science (the deference of one scientific community to the expert opinion of another), b...)
  • 03:47, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Now I see Nick's point. Indeed, separating this modification into two makes sense: ontological modifications should not be introduced through mere definitions. I think this is a point that we haven't properly appreciated until now and I am clearly at f...)
  • 03:45, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #17 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002
  • 03:44, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Now I see Nick's point. Indeed, separating this modification into two makes sense: ontological modifications should not be introduced through mere definitions. I think this is a point that we haven't properly appreciated until now and I am clearly at f...)
  • 20:57, 16 January 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (So it seems to me like there are two modifications are the heart of this single modification - one ontological, the other definitional. This is similar to Hakob's original suggestion to split the mosaic into two separate mosaics (but also different in...)
  • 18:15, 10 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (I agree with Zoe. There are two important points here: 1. Concerning my earlier suggestion to split this modification into two, I withdraw it, as I believe Zoe is correct here: it is impossible to accept that theories can be normative or descriptive w...)
  • 23:08, 9 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Nicholas raises a good point about the confusion that might arise if the term "object" is used to refer to that which a normative theory prescribes. In ordinary language an "object" typically refers to a tangible substance and I can see how someone unf...)
  • 22:53, 9 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Hakob clearly articulates why it is so important to note that an employed method need not follow from all the accepted theories of the time and I agree with him that a modification that articulates this point should be accepted. Nicholas is right to...)
  • 15:14, 26 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (If my understanding is correct, Overgaard has no issue with bringing normative propositions into the mosaic. But he has an objection against the idea that normative theories can prescribe a certain ''object''. I agree that this part is somewhat clumsy....)
  • 01:41, 17 November 2016 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Sebastien’s aim here – to introduce normative propositions into the scientific mosaic – is an important step towards broadening the scope of our scientonomic analyses. However, I am not convinced that the new taxonomy – specifically the definit...)
  • 20:55, 16 November 2016 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (I don't think the modification to the third law is necessary to solve the paradox of normative propositions. It seemed like we had always understood the third law as saying that methods change not in relation to all employed methods, but only in relati...)
  • 17:11, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Since the new formulation of the third law solves the paradox of normative propositions, there is no reason to keep them out of the mosaic. Thus, ''theory'' should be redefined and two new concepts - ''normative theory'' and ''descriptive theory'' - sh...)
  • 17:10, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #5 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002
  • 17:09, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (The new formulation of the second law proposed by Sebastien clarifies a very important point, i.e. that an employed method shouldn't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories of the time. This solves the paradox of normative propositions; now a...)
  • 17:08, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #4 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001
  • 17:08, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #7 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001
  • 17:07, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Test)
  • 17:05, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #6 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001
  • 17:05, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Test)
  • 16:52, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Since the new formulation of the third law solves the paradox of normative propositions, there is no reason to continue keeping them out of the mosaic. Thus, ''theory'' should be redefined and two new concepts - ''normative theory'' and ''descriptive t...)
  • 16:41, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (The new formulation of the second law proposed by Sebastien clarifies a very important point, i.e. that an employed method shouldn't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories of the time. This helps solve the paradox of normative propositions;...)
  • 14:08, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #7 on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001
  • 14:07, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #5 on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001
  • 14:07, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #4 on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001
  • 14:07, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001 (Try some markup Karl Popper.)
  • 14:07, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #6 on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001
  • 14:07, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001 (Let's try some wiki markup. CiteRef::Bunge (1999))
  • 14:06, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001 (This one is even more dubious.)
  • 14:06, 16 August 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Blabla-2016-001 (This is a nonsensical comment.)
  • 03:47, 1 March 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #5 on Modification talk:Example
  • 03:47, 1 March 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #4 on Modification talk:Example
  • 03:46, 1 March 2016 JackBars talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Example (Another comment)
  • 03:45, 1 March 2016 JackBars talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Example (Temporary Comment)
  • 20:34, 29 February 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Talk:Modification: Example (This is a sample comment concerning this modification. At minimum it must say whether the modification is acceptable/unacceptable. It should also indicate why it is acceptable/unacceptable.)
  • 20:00, 29 February 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification: Example (This is a reply to the previous comment.)
  • 19:59, 29 February 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification: Example (This is a sample comment concerning the suggested modification.)
(newest | oldest) View ( | older 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:Log/comments"