Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
The question of Associations 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 Associations 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 Associations 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 Associations 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 Associations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
The question of Associations 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 Associations 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. +
The question of Associations of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Core Theory]]. 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 question of Associations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Associations of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Delineating Theory]]. 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 question of Associations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
The question of Associations of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Descriptive Theory]]. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC. +
The question of Associations of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline Acceptance]]. 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 question of Associations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The question of Associations of Element Decay became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Element Decay]]. This is when the claim of the existence of element decay has been [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005|suggested]], thus introducing the term itself into scientonomic vocabulary. +
The question of Associations of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
The question of Associations of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Agent]]. The publication of [[Barseghyan (2018)]] is an indication of the acceptance of the term. +
The question of Associations of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The question of Associations of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Element]]. The term [[Epistemic Element|epistemic element]] has been ''de facto'' accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset. +
The question of Associations of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''Question Dynamics'']] 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. +
