Comments log

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a log of comments.

Logs      

 

(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 16:46, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can no...)
  • 16:46, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #71 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 16:45, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can not....)
  • 16:45, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #70 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 16:44, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think the current definition should be accepted. I see no problem with limiting the definition of a group to two or more people, since the interesting feature of a group is that it can potentially possess emergent properties that an individual can n...)
  • 16:28, 1 February 2018 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (I agree 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. They should be accepted, although further work on...)
  • 16:24, 1 February 2018 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (I agree with Paul that there might be more to the notion of mutual delegation than the suggested definition allows. Yet, I also think that we have to separate two issues: it's one thing to ask whether the suggested definition is flawless, it's another...)
  • 15:56, 31 January 2018 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (What has transpired in the past year is that, despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community. One indication of this is the fact that any discussion on the notion of ''community'' normally takes Overgaard'...)
  • 20:49, 29 November 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0005 (Agree with Jacob. Since the new formulation is accepted, there is no rationale for not accepting this modification.)
  • 17:34, 29 November 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (As the author of the previous formulation of the second law, I admit that it was far from perfect. For one, it sounded like a tautology which is not what the law of theory acceptance should do. Its second major flaw...)
  • 20:14, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (The concept that a community can consist of other communities seems reasonable. But I do not think that the current definition adequately captures the relationship that must exist between a community and its subcommunities, to make the subcommunity con...)
  • 20:13, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #63 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013
  • 20:06, 5 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (The concept that a community can consist of other communities seems reasonable. But I do not think that the current definition adequately captures the relationship that must exist between a community and its subcommunities, to make the subcommunity con...)
  • 23:05, 4 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #50 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004
  • 22:52, 4 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While I agree with Paul Patton that it is a matter of observational scientonomy to locate cases of hierarchical authority delegation, I think the concept should be accepted as Mirka Loiselle pointed out the case of hierarchical authority delegation in...)
  • 22:44, 4 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Paul Patton expresses concern about condition 2 of authority delegation: "Mutual authority delegation is likely to pose more problems, since in such cases both the communities in question are likely to be epistemic communities, with theories and metho...)
  • 18:02, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While the concept of singular and multiple authority delegation seem useful additions to the authority delegation concept, the ideas of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation do not, because they posit as general categories structures o...)
  • 18:00, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #59 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007
  • 17:58, 4 July 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (While the concept of singular and multiple authority delegation seem useful additions to the authority delegation concept, the ideas of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation do not, because they posit as general categories structures o...)
  • 12:35, 4 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0005 (This follows from the new formulation. We should accept this modification.)
  • 12:33, 4 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (Since it is possible for a theory to satisfy the method of the time, yet remain unaccepted, there is a clear case in which theory acceptance is not causally connected to appraisal. Given the possible outcomes of theory assessment, this modification pro...)
  • 06:11, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0007 (I believe this modification is a sound an impressive addition to the current scientonomic research and literature on authority delegation, and that delving into and fleshing out the various kinds of authority delegation, and what kind of delegation occ...)
  • 05:37, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 ("Knowing the world" was one of the offhand ideas that initially confused me when I read the paper, and I agree that it should be made clearer if the concept of epistemic community is to be accepted, which I think it should be. Regarding the inclusion o...)
  • 05:28, 4 July 2017 Terese Pierre (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Where I most agree with this modification is regarding the taxonomy of group, accidental group and community. Therefore, I do not agree with Max's proposed disregard of the accidental group category. I think having a taxonomy makes terms clearer, unles...)
  • 03:27, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This being said, regarding Hakob's comment above, given that these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions, perhaps the reservations I'm talking about as best as a future modification to this modification's proposed th...)
  • 03:24, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (I think before accepting this modification, I think a proper discussion is warranted here on the definition of a group. Is it right to smuggle in, with this taxonomy, that a group necessarily consists of two or more people? Especially considering that...)
  • 02:53, 4 July 2017 Calahan Janik-Jones (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (Overall, I agree with Max that this modification fits well within (what I believe ought to be) the purview of observational scientonomy. Even if this isn't an in-depth, comprehensive review of the MASM, I feel that this modification is worth accepting...)
  • 02:30, 3 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #51 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014
  • 02:30, 3 July 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (Test)
  • 20:54, 2 July 2017 Markus Alliksaar (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Paul Patton is concerned about condition 2. Personally, I do not see it but perhaps I am missing something. For instance, Patton says: "Mutual authority delegation is likely to pose more problems, since in such cases both the communities in question...)
  • 17:47, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (I don't see any issue with epistemic communities enveloping religions as well as scientific communities. Given communities can exist within communities this doesn't create any problems (if the [Sciento-2017-0013] modification is accepted). If any furth...)
  • 17:42, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (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?...)
  • 17:36, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (Assuming the previous modification is accepted, there seem to be no restrictions in place stopping a community from being made up of multiple communities. Verdict: Accept.)
  • 17:31, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups (as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but...)
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #45 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups(as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but t...)
  • 16:58, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (I agree with this modification. Given the lack of textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM. There seems to be no immediate or obvious alternative and insofar as cl...)
  • 02:15, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (If we accept this definition of ''epistemic community'', then we must also be able to answer the questions of what it means have the collective intentionality to "know the world"? Does the simple act of claiming that your community is attempting to kno...)
  • 01:42, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (That communities consist of sub-communities is an apt conclusion. I see no reason to reject the existence of sub-communities. The examples provided by Nicholas sufficiently demonstrate how one community can be a conglomeration of sub-communities. Verd...)
  • 20:55, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (There doesn't seem to be any reason for denying this. It seems almost trivial that a community can in principle consist of smaller communities. At the moment, the existence of these sub-communities doesn't strike me as problematic. I don't think we can...)
  • 20:48, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those unusual cases when a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its official publication. It is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unoffici...)
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) deleted comment #39 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those typical cases where a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its publication. it is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unofficially acc...)
  • 03:46, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict is also to '''accept''' the modification without qualms. Following the resolution of the paradox of normative propositions, there seems no good reason to exclude normative theories from the TSC, and many reasons why they should be included....)
  • 03:36, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Modern science involves specialization and a division of labor. Thus instances where scientific communities will rely on the expertise of other scientific communities are all pervasive. The two definitions given here for one-sided and mutual authority...)
  • 17:10, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (I support acceptance of the modification. The reason for modifying the definition of employed method requires a bit more explanation than was given. In the new second law, a theory may be accepted into the mosaic if its assessment is inconclusive. The...)
  • 16:30, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (When the TSC was formulated, the status of normative propositions in the mosaic was unclear. Now that the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed to accommodate normative propositions in the mosaic. 'T...)
  • 01:30, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict, too, is to accept this modification. We have an understanding of what Zoe means by "normative propositions", and I believe they certainly play a role in the process of scientific change. So why not adopt the belief that these normative prop...)
  • 01:25, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (I agree with Hakob here - if we're going to have any sort of conversation about whether or not any form of normative propositions exist in our scientonomic worldview, then we need to start from a definition. As is always the case, if we disagree later...)
  • 22:03, 1 February 2017 Hakob Barseghyan (Talk | contribs) posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I agree with Paul that we need to accept the current definition to have something to work with, but we should also keep in mind that sometimes authority delegation seems to require an additional layer of filtering by the delegating community. Paul's ex...)
(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)