Test
Accepted Methodology and Theory Pursuit, Changeability of the Scientific Mosaic, Compatibility of Mosaic Elements, Deducibility in Method Employment, Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific Change, Implementation vs. Employment of Methods, Indicators of Inconclusiveness, Mechanism of Compatibility, Mechanism of Discipline Acceptance, Mechanism of Discipline Rejection, Mechanism of Error Rejection, Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Method Rejection, Mechanism of Mosaic Split, Mechanism of Norm Employment, Mechanism of Normative Theory Rejection, Mechanism of Question Acceptance, Mechanism of Question Rejection, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic Elements, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Theories, Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Mechanism of Theory Demarcation, Mechanism of Theory Pursuit, Mechanism of Theory Rejection, Methodology and Methods, Methods Shaping Theory Construction, Nature of Appraisal, Questions and Theory Pursuit, Role of Definitions in Scientific Change, Role of Employed Methods in Question Acceptance, Role of Ethics in Scientific Change, Role of Methodology in Scientific Change, Role of Non-Social and Environmental Factors in Scientific Change, Role of Practical Considerations in Scientific Change, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Mosaic Split, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Question Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance, Role of Used Theories in Method Employment, Static vs. Dynamic Methods, Status of Impossible Abstract Requirements, Status of Reasons, Sufficient Reason and Theory Acceptance, Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Demarcation and Acceptance, Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment, Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Rejection, The Paradox of Normative Propositions, The Status of Holism and Ripple Effect, Theories Shaping Core Questions, Theory Displacement, Theory vs. Method Compatibility
Epistemic Stances
This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>.
This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text.
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements
What epistemic elements can the stance of theory acceptance be taken towards?
Epistemic Stances
varTemp: Some text and some other text.
AnASLow: a method
AnASLow: a some word
AnASLow: an empty word
AnASCap: a Method
AnASCap: a Some word
AnASCap: an Empty word
SCap: Method
SLow: method
PCap: Epsitemic Stances, Methods, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Some other terms and Random texts
PLow: epistemic elements, methods, theories, instances of theory acceptance, some other terms and random texts
The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy:
- The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory.
- On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.
The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy. The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory. On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.
Hello World!
Formulated Year | Authors List | Child | Disjoint Group | Disjoint Group Order | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) | 2015 | Hakob Barseghyan | Method | Main | 1 |
Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) | 2018 | William Rawleigh | Question | Main | 1 |
Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) | 2015 | Hakob Barseghyan | Theory | Main | 1 |
Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) | 2018 | Maxim Mirkin | Explicit | explicitness | 2 |
Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) | 2018 | Maxim Mirkin | Implicit | explicitness | 2 |
Main,explicitness
Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015), Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) and Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)
Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)
There are several options here: One, Two, Three and Four.
There is only one option: One There are no options.
Like demarcation and acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria can be part of an epistemic agent's employed method. An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements (e.g. methods, theories, questions) are mutually compatible or incompatible, i.e. whether they can be simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it (e.g. scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). Fraser and Sarwar point out that Barseghyan's original definition of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".p. 72 To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".p. 72
Different communities can have different compatibility criteria. While some communities may opt to employ the logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of compatibility, other communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. According to Barseghyan, the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a good indication that the actual criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".p. 11 For example, this is apparent in the case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective domains (i.e. they are considered compatible), but are known to be in conflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.
Hello world
This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."
This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."
|
|
|