Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
Associations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
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'']]. +
Associations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
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. +
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. +
Associations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
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. +
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. +
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'']]. +
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. +
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. +
Associations of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Associations of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Global Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
Associations of Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Implicit]]. The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Individual Epistemic Agent]]. This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
Associations of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Action Availability]]. This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
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. +
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. +
