Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
D
The existence of descriptive theories became accepted together with the acceptance of the rest of the original TSC. +
The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC. +
That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the [[Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
The existence of discipline acceptance became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
The association became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
The existence of disciplines has been accepted since the inception of the community in 2016. +
The association became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
The association became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
The association became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006|respective modification]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The question of Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Acceptance Criteria]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]]. +
The question of Disjointness of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Accidental Group]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Disjointness of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
The question of Disjointness of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
The question of Disjointness of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The term became accepted with the acceptance of the whole [[Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The question of Disjointness of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Core Question]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology'']] that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
