Property:Verdict Rationale
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
The values of this property are to be stored by converting all instances of CiteRef:: to CITE_. E.g.:
{{#set: Verdict Rationale={{#replace:{{{Verdict Rationale|}}}|CiteRef::|CITE_}}|}}
Make sure to make the opposite replacement when retrieving the value. E.g.
{{#replace: {{#show: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|?Verdict Rationale}}|CITE_|CiteRef::}}
This is done to make it transclusion of the text on other pages. When the texts were stored as is, a simple {{#show: {{FULLPAGENAME}}|?Verdict Rationale}} would fail to properly display the semantic citations. Instead of a super superscript [1] with bibliographic info, it would show something like (Barseghyan (2015)).
M
There was a community consensus that "the new formulation of the third law does bring an additional level of precision to our understanding of the mechanism of method change".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-10|c1]]</sup> The community agreed that the new formulation "makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-20|c2]]</sup> Importantly, it was also agreed that the modification "solves the paradox of normative propositions".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0001#comment-8|c3]]</sup> +
Since this modification consisted of two interrelated but essentially distinct suggestions - one definitional and one ontological - it was decided by the community to divide it into two modifications so that the gist of the proposed suggestions is properly articulated. In particular, it was agreed that there are two modifications in "the heart of this single modification - one ontological, the other definitional".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0002#comment-16|c1]]</sup> It was also agreed that the current formulation "is exclusively definitional, and does not give the community an opportunity to appreciate (and, well, accept) the ontological changes that come along with it".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0002#comment-16|c2]]</sup> Consequently, it was decided to divide this modification into two modifications - one [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0001|''definitional'']] and one [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0002|''ontological'']].<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0002#comment-24|c3]]</sup> +
There was a community consensus that the concept of ''authority delegation'' is a significant contribution to scientonomy, as it "sheds light on the mechanism by which the more ''local'', specialized mosaics of epistemic/scientific sub-communities gives rise to the more ''global'' scientific mosaic (of *the* Scientific Community), and all in terms of theories and methods".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0003#comment-19|c1]]</sup> It was also noted that the concept "has already been tacitly accepted by our community"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0003#comment-22|c2]]</sup> as it has been incorporated in some recent scientonomic research. One further suggestion was to continue refining the concept of authority delegation by focusing on cases "where the delegating community applies its own additional criteria before accepting what the experts tell them".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0003#comment-32|c3]]</sup> +
Following a period of discussion, it was finally agreed 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".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0004#comment-69|c1]]</sup> It was noted that these definitions don't take into the account the possibility of ''conditional'' authority delegation, where community ''A'' is prepared to accept the findings of another community on a certain topic only if these findings also satisfy some additional criteria imposed by community ''A''. It was argued that there might be cases where a community's reliance on the findings of another community might be "conditional in ways that the current authority delegation definition is too restrictive to encompass".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0004#comment-37|c2]]</sup> The idea of conditional delegation was found pursuit-worhty.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0004#comment-68|c3]]</sup> It was also stressed that these definitions are only the first step towards a deeper understanding of the mechanism of authority delegation. Scientonomists were advised to pursue the idea of deducing "theorems concerning theory acceptance and method employment in delegating mosaics".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0004#comment-24|c4]]</sup> +
The community agreed that this is "an important addition to theoretical scientonomy".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0001#comment-30|c1]]</sup> It was agreed that since "the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0001#comment-35|c2]]</sup> It was emphasized that if we're going to have any sort of conversation on the status of normative propositions in the mosaic, "then we need to start from a definition".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0001#comment-33|c3]]</sup> +
The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-31|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-34|c2]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c4]]</sup> +
Commentators agreed that Fatigati provided "a compelling case for the power of ‘authoritative texts’ to serve as indicators of accepted theories in MASM"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0003#comment-188|c1]]</sup> and that "it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0003#comment-44|c2]]</sup> It was also noted that we must "take the idea of the MASM as a monolithic community with a grain of salt",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0003#comment-51|c3]]</sup> which is in tune with Fatigati's own position. Fatigati's modification was also praised "as an exemplar for future work in observational scientonomy" especially as due to its potential to spur "further interest in studies of scientific mosaics outside of the immediate Western tradition".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0003#comment-51|c4]]</sup> It was noted that this "type of research will need to be carried out on a very large scale if observational scientonomy is to achieve its lofty goals". Specifically, research focusing on various "small communities" could potentially "bring some observational evidence into the discussion of Necessary Elements" and "might prove of interest for future scientonomists interested in exploring the Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0003#comment-51|c5]]</sup> +
The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0004#comment-57|c1]]</sup> It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0004#comment-36|c2]]</sup> It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0001#comment-65|c3]]</sup> +
The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|the new formulation of the second law]] suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is ''not'' a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification. +
While the notions of ''singular'' and ''multiple'' authority delegation didn't cause much controversy, the notions of ''hierarchical'' and ''non-hierarchical'' authority delegation gave rise to notable disagreement among scientonomists. As a result, the modification was in discussion for about a year and a half.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0007#comment-90|c1]]</sup> Eventually, a consensus emerged mostly as a result of offline (in-person) discussion meetings. It was agreed that "for decisions that are not rote and routine, it seems highly unlikely that a pre-established hierarchy of authority delegation does or could exist, nor could a pre-established belief that all authorities should be given equal weight".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0007#comment-60|c2]]</sup> However, it was also agreed that Loiselle's study "have identified at least one aspect of hierarchical authority delegation in epistemic communities",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0007#comment-62|c3]]</sup> for "there seem to be instances where some experts occupy privileged positions in the eyes of those delegating authority" and that "alone is sufficient to suggest that hierarchies of authority delegation exists, regardless of of how transient or fixed they might be".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0007#comment-90|c4]]</sup> +
A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-53|c1]]</sup> and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-67|c2]]</sup> Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of ''group'' as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-52|c3]]</sup> Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c4]]</sup> it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0012#comment-73|c5]]</sup> +
The modification can only become accepted once modifications [[:Modification:Sciento-2017-0013|Sciento-2017-0013]] and [[:Modification:Sciento-2017-0014|Sciento-2017-0014]] all become accepted. +
The consensus was reached as a result of in-person consultations with scientonomists mostly outside of the discussion page of this modification. It was agreed that as the only currently published definition of the term, Rawleigh's definition is to be accepted as the best available. An alternative definition of ''question'' as "a topic of scientific inquiry"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0001#comment-79|c1]]</sup> was presented as a potentially pursuit-worthy direction. However, it was eventually agreed that including "scientificity" into the definition of ''question'' conflates "the question of how a question should be defined" with "the question of what stances can be taken towards questions".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0001#comment-80|c2]]</sup> It does not distinguish "the propositional content of the element itself" and "its historical fate", for "scientificity or lack thereof doesn't change the propositional content of the question".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0001#comment-82|c3]]</sup> +
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".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0002#comment-73|c1]]</sup> 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.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0002#comment-85|c2]]</sup> Third, scientonomists are actively encouraged to pursue the question of possibility of reducing questions to a conjunction of theories and methods.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0002#comment-85|c3]]</sup> +
It was noted that "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".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-83|c1]]</sup> The discussion also revealed a need to distinguish "a situation where no consensus exists from a situation where a consensus exists that a question is illegitimate".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-87|c2]]</sup> In other words, "just as question acceptance, theory acceptance too seems to allow for three values: (clearly) accepted; (clearly) unaccepted; no consensus".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-89|c3]]</sup> Thus, a new question was suggested concerning the binary character of epistemic stances: "are all epistemic stances binary, or do they allow for more than two values?"<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0003#comment-89|c4]]</sup> +
As the modification concerned exclusively questions, it was set to be accepted automatically once its "parent" modifications became accepted. Thus, the questions of the ''mechanism'' of question acceptance and ''indicators'' of question acceptance became automatically accepted once the presupposed modifications were accepted. +
The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, following a series of discussions. It was noted that the new definition "does clarify the scientific understanding of methods as normative theories that can be both accepted and employed".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0005#comment-94|c1]]</sup> It was also highlighted that the consensus on this modification "has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the speakers treated the suggested definition of method as accepted".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0005#comment-106|c2]]</sup> Importantly, it was also agreed that the acceptance of "this definition will require a whole series of changes to other theories already accepted by the scientonomic community to accord with the new definitions, for example, the ''Methodology can shape Method theorem''."<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0005#comment-94|c3]]</sup> This raises an important workflow-related question: does this mean that the encyclopedia editors have the right to make the respective changes?<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0005#comment-94|c4]]</sup> +
Following a series of off-line discussions, a consensus emerged concerning this modification: it was agreed that the modification is to be accepted.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0006#comment-105|c1]]</sup> It was mentioned that most of the elements of this new ontology "has already been accepted by the scientonomic community".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0006#comment-95|c2]]</sup> It was also stressed that "the consensus has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the presenters treated this new ontology as accepted."<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0006#comment-105|c3]]</sup> The fact that the consensus concerning this modification has been achieved primarily off-line, i.e. outside of the discussion pages of this encyclopedia suggests that the scientonomic "workflow must have a way of accommodating these discussions".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0006#comment-105|c4]]</sup> +
The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that whether or not "definitions can have a truth value" is irrelevant to this modification and that "the question of most relevance to scientonomy is whether definitions can be accepted or not accepted by an epistemic agent".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0007#comment-96|c1]]</sup> It was also noted that the consensus concerning this modification "has manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto."<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0007#comment-107|c2]]</sup> +
The consensus on this modification emerged mostly off-line.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0008#comment-110|c1]]</sup> Importantly, it was also emphasized that its acceptance may have a ripple effect on other accepted definitions.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0008#comment-98|c2]]</sup> It was not clear whether "the acceptance of a new theory could be considered to implicitly grant permission to the editors to make small changes to old theories for the sake of maintaining consistency, without the need for explicit review and acceptance".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2018-0008#comment-98|c3]]</sup> Thus, a new question concerning [[Workflow - Handling Ripple Effects|handling this ripple effect]] was accepted. +
