Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Provide your comments regarding the suggested modification here. At minimum you need to indicate whether you think the modification is acceptable, why "yes" or why "no". The key question here is not whether the modification is flawless - no modification ever is. The key question is whether the modification, if accepted, will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge.

Please follow the instructions in the guidelines for readers.


Maxim Mirkin

82 months ago
Score 1

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? There's nothing inherently wrong here but such a modification seems to create a whole set of new work without adding much in terms of description value.

Verdict: Accept.

Tessa Ng

30 months ago
Score 0

The suggested modification proposes a further qualification of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities. Assuming the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted and the existence of sub-communities is also accepted, the modification puts forward that epistemic communities can constitute a non-epistemic community, or at least be a sub-group within the larger non-epistemic group.

In light of the pertinent example of Google, it seems immediately intuitive to accept the modification due to its simplicity and apparent truth. Additionally, this modification raises potentially fruitful new questions, such as: “what sub-categories can communities consist of?” and opens the door to new studies on community formation, structure, and constitution. For example, knowing that certain non-epistemic communities contain epistemic sub-communities, one may ask whether the inverse is true and; moreover, whether groups of similar compositions may display common qualities. It seems obvious that the inverse is also true (that epistemic communities can contain non-epistemic sub-communities). For instance, a scientific research company may have a financial sector that handles the employees’ payrolls. In light of the versatility of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities and sub-communities, a fruitful of extension of this modification would be to investigate the diversification of communities throughout the story of scientific change and how other classifications like accidental groups may be connected to epistemic and non-epistemic communities.

In sum, the suggested modification has the potential to open various avenues into further investigation of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities and sub-communities. The modification is intuitively true, in that its suggestion seems obvious in many modern cases of non-epistemic communities. Hence, my verdict is to accept the modification.

You are not allowed to post comments.