Difference between revisions of "Status of Questions"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Topic
 
{{Topic
|Question=What is the status of '''questions''' ('''problems''', '''topics''') in the mosaic? Are questions (problems, topics) separate entities, or can they be reduced to theories?
+
|Question=What is the status of '''questions''' ('''problems''', '''topics''') in the ontology of epistemic elements?
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description={{#evt:
+
|Description=[[Question|Questions/topics]] are one of several key categories of our encyclopedia (along with theories and modifications). Are questions part of the process of scientific change, or are they merely a useful instrument for organizing scientonomic data? It seems apparent that the relevance of a question/topic may be different in different time periods and different mosaic. For instance, while the question of phlogiston's properties would be a legitimate research question in the mid-18th century, it is no longer legitimate in the contemporary chemistry. This seems to suggest that questions are not merely a useful instrument for storing and presenting scientonomic data, but are actually part of the process of scientific change. Thus, it is important to identify what status questions have in the mosaic, i.e. whether or not they are their own entities, or whether they are expressible through theories.
service=youtube
 
|id=hQE-PdeGNY0
 
|alignment=right
 
|urlargs=start=509
 
|description=Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
 
|container=frame
 
}}
 
 
 
Questions/topics are one of several key categories of our encyclopedia (along with theories and modifications). Are questions part of the process of scientific change, or are they merely a useful instrument for organizing scientonomic data? It seems apparent that the relevance of a question/topic may be different in different time periods and different mosaic. For instance, while the question of phlogiston's properties would be a legitimate research question in the mid-18th century, it is no longer legitimate in the contemporary chemistry. This seems to suggest that questions are not merely a useful instrument for storing and presenting scientonomic data, but are actually part of the process of scientific change. Thus, it is important to identify what status questions have in the mosaic, i.e. whether or not they are their own entities, or whether they are expressible through theories.
 
 
|Parent Topic=Epistemic Elements
 
|Parent Topic=Epistemic Elements
 
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
 
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
 
|Formulated Year=2016
 
|Formulated Year=2016
 
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,
 
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,
 +
|Related Topics=Question,
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 +
}}
 +
{{YouTube Video
 +
|VideoID=hQE-PdeGNY0
 +
|VideoStartAt=509
 +
|VideoDescription=Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
 +
|VideoEmbedSection=Description
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Acceptance Record
 
{{Acceptance Record

Revision as of 18:02, 17 November 2018

What is the status of questions (problems, topics) in the ontology of epistemic elements?

Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic

Questions/topics are one of several key categories of our encyclopedia (along with theories and modifications). Are questions part of the process of scientific change, or are they merely a useful instrument for organizing scientonomic data? It seems apparent that the relevance of a question/topic may be different in different time periods and different mosaic. For instance, while the question of phlogiston's properties would be a legitimate research question in the mid-18th century, it is no longer legitimate in the contemporary chemistry. This seems to suggest that questions are not merely a useful instrument for storing and presenting scientonomic data, but are actually part of the process of scientific change. Thus, it is important to identify what status questions have in the mosaic, i.e. whether or not they are their own entities, or whether they are expressible through theories.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by William Rawleigh in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy12 May 2018Existence of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Question ExistsThere is such a thing as a question.2018

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyQuestion Exists26 September 2018

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:
Modification Community Date Suggested Summary Verdict Verdict Rationale Date Assessed
Sciento-2018-0002 Scientonomy 12 May 2018 Accept the ontology of epistemic elements with theories, methods, and questions as distinct epistemic elements. Accepted Following several focused discussions - both in-person and on the discussion page of this modification - it was finally decided that the modification is to be accepted. Three important clarifications were made. First, it was noted that Rawleigh only shows that questions cannot be reduced either to methods or to theories, but it is still conceivable "that questions may be functions of both theories and methods simultaneously".c1 Second, it was decided that accepting the modification is still warranted, since currently we don't have any idea how questions could be reduced to a conjunction of theories and methods.c2 Third, scientonomists are actively encouraged to pursue the question of possibility of reducing questions to a conjunction of theories and methods.c3 26 September 2018

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Question Exists.

Question Exists states: "There is such a thing as a question."

Rawleigh argued that questions are an integral part of the process of scientific change.1

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Epistemic Elements.


References

  1. ^  Rawleigh, William. (2018) The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, 1-12. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29651.