Difference between revisions of "The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)"
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Theory | {{Theory | ||
| − | | | + | |Topic=Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) |
|Theory Type=Descriptive | |Theory Type=Descriptive | ||
| − | | | + | |Subject=The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) |
| − | | | + | |Predicate=is tautological |
| + | |Title=The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological | ||
| + | |Alternate Titles= | ||
| + | |Title Formula= | ||
| + | |Text Formula= | ||
| + | |Object=Tautological | ||
| + | |Formulation Text= | ||
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | ||
|Formulated Year=2015 | |Formulated Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Formulation File= | ||
|Description=According to Barseghyan's initial position, "the second law is not a law in the traditional sense, for normally a law is supposed to have some empirical content, i.e. its opposite should be conceivable at least in principle. Obviously, the second law is a ''tautology'', since it follows from the definition of ''employed method''".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] | |Description=According to Barseghyan's initial position, "the second law is not a law in the traditional sense, for normally a law is supposed to have some empirical content, i.e. its opposite should be conceivable at least in principle. Obviously, the second law is a ''tautology'', since it follows from the definition of ''employed method''".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] | ||
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015) | |Resource=Barseghyan (2015) | ||
| − | |Page Status= | + | |Prehistory= |
| + | |History= | ||
| + | |Page Status=Editor Approved | ||
| + | |Editor Notes= | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 18: | Line 28: | ||
|Accepted From Approximate=No | |Accepted From Approximate=No | ||
|Acceptance Indicators=The proposition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. | |Acceptance Indicators=The proposition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. | ||
| − | |Still Accepted= | + | |Still Accepted=Yes |
| − | |Accepted Until Era= | + | |Accepted Until Era= |
| − | |Accepted Until Year= | + | |Accepted Until Year= |
| − | |Accepted Until Month= | + | |Accepted Until Month= |
| − | |Accepted Until Day= | + | |Accepted Until Day= |
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| − | |Rejection Indicators= | + | |Rejection Indicators= |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:33, 19 January 2023
This is an answer to the question Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) that states "Barseghyan's original second law is tautological."
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | The proposition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. | Yes |
Question Answered
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: Is Barseghyan's original second law a tautology?
See Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) for more details.
Description
According to Barseghyan's initial position, "the second law is not a law in the traditional sense, for normally a law is supposed to have some empirical content, i.e. its opposite should be conceivable at least in principle. Obviously, the second law is a tautology, since it follows from the definition of employed method".1p. 129, footnote
Reasons
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
