Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
The question of Associations of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Logical 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. +
The question of Associations of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method Hierarchy]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
The question of Associations of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method]]. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, [[Method (Barseghyan-2015)]], became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate. +
The question of Associations of Methodology became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Methodology]]. That is when the first definition of the term, [[Methodology (Barseghyan-2015)]] became accepted, which is a good indication that the question itself became accepted. +
The question of Associations of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The question of Associations of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
The question of Associations of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
The question of Associations of Multiple Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Multiple Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Loiselle titled [[Loiselle (2017)|Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Loiselle (2017) +
The question of Associations of Non-Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Non-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 Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Loiselle titled ''[[Loiselle (2017)|Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication]]'' is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
The question of Associations of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Norm Employment]]. The question became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|acceptance]] of [[Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)|the first definition of the term]]. +
The question of Associations of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Normative Theory]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
The question of Associations of Procedural Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Procedural Method]]. The term became accepted together with the whole [[Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The question of Associations of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Acceptance]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change]] that offered a definition of ''question acceptance'' 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 Question Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Pursuit]]. This is when [[Barseghyan (2022b)|''Question Pursuit as an Epistemic Stance'']] was published. +
The question of Associations of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change]] that offered a definition of ''question'' was published. This is a good indication that the question of how ''question'' is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community. +
The question of Associations of Reason became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Reason]]. This is when [[Palider (2019)|Palider's paper]] presenting the first scientonomic definition of the term was published. +
The question of Associations of Scientific Change became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Scientific Change]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
The question of Associations of Scientific Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Scientific Community]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
The question of Associations of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Scientific Mosaic]]. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
