Changes

|Question=Are there really instances of ''necessaryconclusive'' theory acceptance assessment or does every case of theory assessment involve some degree of ''inconclusiveness''?

|Description=[[The Second Law|The second law]] specifies that, in order to become accepted, a theory is assessed by the method employed at the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] Barseghyan envisioned three possible distinct outcomes for theory assessment: accept, not accept, and inconclusive.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 199]] Are there really cases where acceptance the assessment of a theory is necessary''conclusive'', or is there always some degree of ''inconclusiveness'' involved? If there are necessary cases, is it possible for us as historians to show decisively that a theory assessment had a conclusive outcome, e.g. to show that it was necessarily accepted after having conclusively satisfied the requirements of the employed method rather than accepted after an assessment that involved some degree of inconclusiveness. ? We can ask the same question with regard to mosaic splits: are [[Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|necessary splits]] theoretically actually possible, or are all mosaic splits the result of inconclusive assessment? And if they are possible, can we ever as historians detect them?