Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to: navigation, search

Commenting on this modification is closed; the modification is accepted.


Hakob Barseghyan

18 months ago
Score 0

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 unofficially accepted for more than a year now. They have been the starting point of pretty much all our discussions concerning communities and relations between them (authority delegation etc.). It would only be proper if we were to make the acceptance of these definitions official.

Verdict: accept.

Maxim Mirkin

16 months ago
Score 0
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 there doesn't seem to be any value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups. There is nothing in-between collective intentionality and no such thing. Individually, a group cannot exist on its own in this fork which has been created. From the outset, it looks to be preferable to either include the definition of groups inherently in accidental groups and communities, or to get rid of accidental groups entirely. Either you are a community or you are a group, or either you are an accidental group or a community; the inclusion of groups as a separate entity in both is confusing and unnecessary.

Calahan Janik-Jones

16 months ago
Score 0

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 this had been such a contentious issue in the 2017 seminar, I'm not sure that it's right to make this assumption — especially given that Overgaard's paper runs on exactly that for this definition, a general assumption.

My suggestion would be to divide this modification into one modification for the definition of a "group," and another modification for the taxonomy for kinds of groups. My verdict is to accept this taxonomy — I see no present standing issues — but I can personally see support for the idea that an epistemic community could consist of a single member, and so I'm hesitant to accept the definition of a group presented here along with the taxonomy.

Calahan Janik-Jones

16 months ago
Score 0

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 theory.

I don't have major qualms about this modification, rather I think it's simply best to avoid making any candid assumptions in these formulations.

Terese Pierre

16 months ago
Score 0
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, unless 'group' is then going to be redefined as 'two or more people that share a characteristic and do not have collective intentionality,' which goes back to Cal's point. Making terms clearer as a whole is necessary, and there have been other modifications made and accepted with the sole purpose of making things clearer. Thus, I agree with Cal's suggestion of splitting this modification into two before any wholesale acceptance.

Hakob Barseghyan

9 months ago
Score 0
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's definition as its starting point. Yes, it may not be perfect - but what is perfect? The bottom line is that we all agree - implicitly or explicitly - that this is the best available taxonomy we have at the moment, which is what it means to be accepted. My suggestion is to close the discussion, formally accept the modification, and then proceed to improving the taxonomy.

Paul Patton

9 months ago
Score 0
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 not. I also see the useful in drawing a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities.

You are not allowed to post comments.