Search by property

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page provides a simple browsing interface for finding entities described by a property and a named value. Other available search interfaces include the page property search, and the ask query builder.

Search by property

A list of all pages that have property "Description First Paragraph" with value "TODO". Since there have been only a few results, also nearby values are displayed.

Showing below up to 31 results starting with #1.

View (previous 50 | next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)

    

List of results

  • Closure Mechanism - Acceptance by Default (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)  + (One potential way of addressing the proble … One potential way of addressing the problem of closure mechanism is by introducing a “countdown” mechanism, where the community is given a three-month (90-day) discussion period for commenting on a suggested modification and, if no objections raised during this period, the proposed modification becomes accepted by default. According to Shaw and Barseghyan:default. According to Shaw and Barseghyan:)
  • Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)  + (One putative method of learning the [[Employed Method|''employed method'']] … One putative method of learning the [[Employed Method|''employed method'']] of the time is by studying texts concerning scientific [[Methodology|''methodology'']] to learn what method was prescribed by the [[Scientific Community|community]] or advocated by ''great scientists''. However, such indicators can yield incorrect results. During the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific community explicitly advocated the ''empiricist-inductivist'' methodology championed by [[Isaac Newton]]. This methodology held that new theories should be deduced from phenomena, and that unobservable entities should not be posited. However, the historical record actually shows that several theories positing unobservable entities did, in fact, become accepted during this period. These include Benjamin Franklin's theory of electricity, which posited an unobservable ''electric fluid'', the ''phlogiston'' theory of combustion, and the theory that li… combustion, and the theory that li…)
  • One-sided Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)  + (One-sided authority delegation is a sub-type of authority delegation. It describes a situation where one community delegates authority over some topic to another community, but the other community does not delegate any authority back.)
  • Mutual Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)  + (Overgaard and Loiselle illustrate the rela … Overgaard and Loiselle illustrate the relationship of mutual authority delegation by a number of examples. For one, physicists acknowledge that biologists are the experts on questions concerning life, and likewise biologists acknowledge that physicists are the experts on questions concerning physical processes. Similar relationships can be found within individual scientific disciplines. Consider, for instance, the relationship between theoretical and applied physicists, where despite the differences in their methods and overall objectives, the two communities customarily delegate authority to each other on a wide array of topics.y to each other on a wide array of topics.)
  • The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.Pandey (2023))
  • The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)  + (Pandey provides the following summary of the argument:)
  • Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Possible [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] … Possible [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] split is a form of mosaic split that can happen if it is ever the case that [[Theory|theory]] assessment reaches an inconclusive result. In this case, a mosaic split can, but need not necessarily, result.pp. 208-213 That is, "the sufficient condition for this second variety of mosaic split is an element of inconclusiveness in the assessment outcome of at least one of the contender theories".p. 208east one of the contender theories".p. 208)
  • Scientific Mosaic (Rawleigh-2022)  + (Rather than conceiving a scientific mosaic … Rather than conceiving a scientific mosaic as a simple set-theoretic unity of epistemic elements, this definition is model-theoretic: it replaces the explicitly set-theoretic wording “set of all epistemic elements” with a semantic “model of all accepted elements”.p. 91 The definition considers a scientific mosaic to be a model for interpreting all natural language sentences, whether those be observational, theoretical, or simply ordinary conversational sentences. simply ordinary conversational sentences.)
  • Question Exists  + (Rawleigh argued that questions are an integral part of the process of scientific change.Rawleigh (2018))
  • Epistemic Stances Towards Questions - Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018)  + (Rawleigh argued that, just like theories, [[Question|questions]] too can be [[Question Acceptance|accepted]] or unaccepted. A question can be accepted by an agent at one period at not accepted by another.)
  • Question Acceptance Exists  + (Rawleigh emphasized that the process of scientific change involves not only theories and methods but also questions.Rawleigh (2018))
  • Scientificity Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)  + (Sarwar and Fraser argued that in addition … Sarwar and Fraser argued that in addition to other epistemic stances, there is also the stance of scientificity. Thus, epistemic agents can consider a theory scientific or unscientific regardless of whether they accept, use, or pursue it. As such, they argue, scientificity is a distinct epistemic stance.Sarwar and Fraser (2018) epistemic stance.Sarwar and Fraser (2018))
  • Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Scientific underdetermination is the thesi … Scientific underdetermination is the thesis that the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]] is not deterministic, and science could have evolved differently than it did. Hypothetically, two [[Scientific Community|scientific communities]] developing separately could experience an entirely different sequence of successive states of their respective [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaics.]] Even without the TSC, the implausibility of scientific determinism can be seen by considering the process of [[Theory|theory]] construction, which is outside the present scope of the TSC. Theory construction requires creative imagination, and the formulation of a given theory is therefore not inevitable. Still, underdetermination can also be inferred as a theorem from the axioms of the TSC.pp. 196-198rem from the axioms of the TSC.pp. 196-198)
  • Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Scientonomy currently recognizes several d … Scientonomy currently recognizes several different [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|stances]] that an [[Epistemic Community|epistemic community]] might take towards a theory. The community might [[Theory Acceptance|accept]] the theory as the best currently available description of the world, it might regard a theory as worthy of [[Theory Pursuit|pursuit]] and further development, or it might regard the theory as adequate for [[Theory Use|use]] for some practical purpose, while not the best description of the world. pp. 30-42 These stances, and their opposites (i.e. that a theory is unaccepted, neglected, or unused)together constitute the range of stances that a community might take towards a theory. The concept of a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] consisting of the set of all theories accepted, and all methods employed by the community pp.1-11 is central to scientonomy, as is the goal of explaining all changes… the goal of explaining all changes…)
  • Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Scientonomy focuses on the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] … Scientonomy focuses on the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] of accepted [[Theory|theories]] and employed [[Method|methods]]. In their daily work, individual scientists rely on and formulate theories about the object of their research, and use methods to appraise their theories. Both the theories they believe and the criteria they use to assess them may change over time. Although historians of science have often focused on individual scientists, often those deemed great, like Galileo or Einstein, and the changes in their beliefs as they constructed and assessed theories, [[Scientific Change|changes to the scientific mosaic itself]] happen at the level of the community. Scientonomy thus seeks to focus efforts on the social level of the scientific community rather than on the individual.c community rather than on the individual.)
  • Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Scientonomy ought not to limit its applica … Scientonomy ought not to limit its applicability to a restricted time period. If a scientific mosaic can be identified at a certain period in time, then it is a task of scientonomy to explain any and all changes in that mosaic at that time period. Similarly, an observational scientonomists ought not exclude any time period from their domain.exclude any time period from their domain.)
  • Singular Authority Delegation (Loiselle-2017)  + (Singular authority delegation is a sub-type of authority delegation. It describes a situation in which a community delegates authority over some topic to a single community.)
  • Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Sociocultural factors can impact the proce … Sociocultural factors can impact the process of a theory's acceptance when the employed method of the community allows for such factors to affect the process. This is derived by the Second Law alone. For example, a community which ascribes infallible power to a leader or a group of leaders is in a position to accept a theory in virtue of the leaders. Furthermore, such factors can guide a scientific community to reject a theory based on the acceptance of another social theory with which it is at odds.er social theory with which it is at odds.)
  • Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Some facts ''ought'' to be relevant to the … Some facts ''ought'' to be relevant to the [[Theory Acceptance|assessment of a theory]] because the content of the theory itself implies their relevance, and others ought to be relevant simply by definition. When assessing a theory concerning scientific change, relevant facts that ought necessarily to be considered include questions pertinent to scientific change processes. For example: What [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]] were part of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] of the community in question, both before and after the instance of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]]? What modifications were proposed and what parts of the mosaic did they intend to replace? Which of these modifications became accepted into the mosaic, and how? became accepted into the mosaic, and how?)
  • Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (Split due to inconclusiveness can occur when two mutually incompatible theories are accepted simultaneously by the same community.)
  • Question Pursuit (Barseghyan-2022)  + (TODO: Add the description)
  • Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)  + (TODO: Description here)
  • Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)  + (TODO: Description here)
  • Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)  + (TODO: Nikki add a description)
  • The Law of Question Acceptance (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)  + (TODO: Nikki add a description)
  • Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)  + (TODO: Nikki add a description)
  • Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)  + (TODO: Nikki add a description)
  • Sufficient Reason theorem (Palider-2019)  + (The '''Sufficient Reason theorem''' shows … The '''Sufficient Reason theorem''' shows how a sufficient reason leads to acceptance. This theorem follows from the definition of a [[Sufficient Reason (Palider-2019)]] and from [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)]]. By the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted. The claim of this theorem is that if there is a sufficient reason for a theory, then that theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the time. This claim is justified as follows. time. This claim is justified as follows.)
  • The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)  + (The ''law of theory demarcation'' tries to … The ''law of theory demarcation'' tries to provide a mechanism of how the scientific status of theories changes overtime. The assessment outcomes of the law (satisfied, unsatisfied, and inconclusive) are ''logically'' separated from their consequences. In particular, the assessment outcome of conclusively satisfying the demarcation criteria leads to a theory being scientific, the assessment outcome of consclusively not satisfying the criteria lead to the theory being unscientific, and the final inconclusive outcome can lead to the theory being scientific, unscientific, or uncertain.Sarwar and Fraser (2018)fic, or uncertain.Sarwar and Fraser (2018))
  • Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)  + (The [[Method|methods]] … The [[Method|methods]] employed in [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|theory assessment]] do not always correspond to the professed scientific [[Methodology|methodology]], and may be purely implicit. Thus, a scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between accepted methodologies and employed methods. Because of their role in theory assessment, and thus in determining the contents of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], a scientonomic theory ought to include employed methods, whether they are explicit or implicit. pp. 52-61r they are explicit or implicit. pp. 52-61)
  • Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)  + (The [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] … The [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] is in a process of perpetual change. Most of the theories that we accept nowadays didn’t even exist two or three hundred years ago. Similarly, at least some of the methods that we employ in theory assessment nowadays have nothing to do with the methods employed in the 17th century. Thus, it is safe to say that the process of scientific change involves both theories and methods.p.9 Changes in the scientific mosaic can be viewed as a series of successive frames, where each frame represents a state of that mosaic at a given point of time. Obviously, such a frame would include all accepted theories and all employed methods of the time. p. 9and all employed methods of the time. p. 9)
  • The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)  + (The [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|initial formulation]] … The [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|initial formulation]] of the law, proposed by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']], stated that a [[Method|method]] becomes [[Employed Method|employed]] only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.p.132 In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which this reformulation attempts to solve.Sebastien (2016)ulation attempts to solve.Sebastien (2016))
  • Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)  + (The [[The Third Law|third law]] … The [[The Third Law|third law]] allows for two distinct scenarios of method employment. A [[Method|method]] may become employed because it follows strictly from accepted [[Theory|theories]] or employed methods, or it may the abstract requirements of some other employed method. This second scenario allows for creative ingenuity and depends on the technology of the times, therefore it may be fulfilled in many ways and allows underdeterminism p. 198.y ways and allows underdeterminism p. 198.)
  • Error Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)  + (The analysis of several several instances … The analysis of several several instances of scientific error by [[Sarah Machado-Marques|Machado-Marques]] and [[Paul Patton|Patton]] suggest that the handling of these instances by scientists is in accord with the theory rejection theorem. Handling of error involves, according to this view, not only a rejection of some of the propositions that are considered to be accepted erroneously but also an acceptance of some new propositions. In some cases, an erroneously accepted ''first-order'' proposition is replaced by another ''first-order'' proposition incompatible with it. In other cases, an erroneously accepted ''first-order'' proposition is replaced by a ''second-order'' proposition stating the lack of sufficient reason for accepting the first-order proposition. According to this view, the handling of erroneously accepted theories involves their replacement with other theories; the handling of scientific error is therefore in full accord with the theory rejection theorem. accord with the theory rejection theorem.)
  • Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)  + (The category is agent-relative and encompa … The category is agent-relative and encompasses that knowledge which cannot - even in principle - be explicated. The definition was first suggested by [[Hakob Barseghyan]] and [[Maxim Mirkin]] in their ''[[Barseghyan and Mirkin (2019)|The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change]]''Barseghyan and Mirkin (2019) and was restated by Mirkin in his ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]''.[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]''.)
  • Epistemic Community Exists  + (The claim of the existence of epistemic co … The claim of the existence of epistemic communities can be traced back to Overgaard, who presented the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities in his [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change'']].Overgaard (2017)[[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change'']].Overgaard (2017))
  • Core Question (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)  + (The core questions of a [[Discipline| discipline]] … The core questions of a [[Discipline| discipline]] are those general questions that are essential to a discipline, having the power to define it and establish its boundaries within a hierarchy of questions. They are identified as such in the discipline's [[Delineating Theory| delineating theory]].Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021) The [[Scientific Mosaic| scientific mosaic]] consists of [[Theory| theories]] and [[Question| questions]].Barseghyan (2015)Barseghyan (2018)Rawleigh (2018)Sebastien (2016) Questions form hierarchies in which more specific questions are [[Subquestion| subquestions]] of broader questions. Theories enter into this hierarchy as well since questions presuppose theories, and theories are answers to questions. It is the position of core questions within such hierarchies that confer upon them the power to define and establish the boundaries of a discipline by indicating which questions and theories are incl…ich questions and theories are incl…)
  • Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + (The corollary is meant to restate the cont … The corollary is meant to restate the content of [[Rory Harder|Harder]]'s [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|the zeroth law]] of scientific change. Since the corollary follows deductively from the definition of [[Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|''compatibility'']], it highlights that the zeroth law as it was formulated by Harder is tautologous. Since the corollary covers the same idea as the zeroth law, all the theorems that were thought to be deducible by means of the zeroth law (e.g. [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|the theory rejection theorem]] or [[Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|the method rejection theorem]]) can now be considered deducible by means of the corollary.dered deducible by means of the corollary.)
  • Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015)  + (The definition assumes that it is possible … The definition assumes that it is possible to conceive of methods that do not presuppose any substantive knowledge about the world. If a method doesn't presuppose any accepted theories other than definitions, the method is procedural.p. 219 As a possible example of a procedural method, [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] mentions what he calls the ''deductive acceptance method'', according to which "if a proposition is deductively inferred from other accepted propositions, it is to be accepted".p. 221 This method, according to Barseghyan presupposes only some definition of ''deductive inference'' as well as some very abstract method such as "only accept the best available theories".p. 220-221 The latter is another possible instance of a procedural method, as it too doesn't seem to presuppose any substantive knowledge of the world.se any substantive knowledge of the world.)
  • Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)  + (The definition tweaks the [[Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)|original definition]] … The definition tweaks the [[Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)|original definition]] of the term by [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard]] and [[Mirka Loiselle|Loiselle]] to ensure that the relationship of authority delegation can obtain between [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agents]] of all types. It also substitutes [[Question|''question'']] for ''topic'', as the former is the proper scientonomic term that should be used.per scientonomic term that should be used.)
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:SearchByProperty/:Description-20First-20Paragraph/TODO"