Modification talk:Sciento-2022-0002

Provide your comments regarding the suggested modification here. At minimum you need to indicate whether you think the modification is acceptable, why "yes" or why "no". The key question here is not whether the modification is flawless - no modification ever is. The key question is whether the modification, if accepted, will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge.

Please follow the instructions in the guidelines for readers.

Sort by date Sort by score

Enable comment auto-refresher

You are ignoring the author of this comment

Show comment | Manage ignore list

Hakob Barseghyan

17 months ago

Score 0

I believe this is a very welcome addition to scientonomic body of knowledge. Rawleigh makes a strong case for the new law of method employment, which has clear advantages over the current third law. I agree with Rawleigh, that there doesn't seem to be any prima facie reasons to think that the mechanism of method employment should be somehow different from the mechanism of norm employment in general. Thus, until shown otherwise, I believe we should accept Rawleigh's formulation of the law of norm employment. I also think that the replacement of deducible with derivable makes sense, as it makes the law applicable to mosaic of those agents who rely on non-deductive types of inference. Finally, Rawleigh's formulation also does a good job of getting rid of the enumeration of epistemic elements and allows for methods to be derivable from any epistemic elements that are part of the agent's mosaic. Among other things, the formulation is also more future proof: we won't have to change it if and when we include other elements into our ontology. Overall, this is a great improvement over our current third law and is to be accepted.

Permalink

You are not allowed to post comments.