Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,170
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Modification:Sciento-2017-0005 (view source)
Revision as of 18:20, 5 February 2017
, 18:20, 5 February 2017Created page with "{{Modification |Community=Community:Scientonomy |Acronym=Sciento |Summary=Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. |Date Suggested Year=2017 |Date Suggested Month=Fe..."
{{Modification
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.
|Date Suggested Year=2017
|Date Suggested Month=February
|Date Suggested Day=5
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
|Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)
|Preamble=It says in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly followed from the definition of ''employed method''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 205-207]] The reformulation of the law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.
|To Accept=The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017),
|To Reject=The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015),
|Parent Modification=Modification:Sciento-2017-0004
|Verdict=Open
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
}}
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Acronym=Sciento
|Summary=Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.
|Date Suggested Year=2017
|Date Suggested Month=February
|Date Suggested Day=5
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,
|Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)
|Preamble=It says in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] the second law is a tautology, as it purportedly followed from the definition of ''employed method''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote]] However in later deductions of the theorems concerning the underdeterminism of scientific change and mosaic slit, the second law clearly transpires as a non-tautological law, i.e. a law that forbids certain courses of events.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 205-207]] The reformulation of the law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit and thus shows that the law is not a tautology, as it clearly forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.
|To Accept=The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017),
|To Reject=The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015),
|Parent Modification=Modification:Sciento-2017-0004
|Verdict=Open
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
}}
