Search by property

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.

List of results

• Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015)  + (To understand what is meant by mosaic spli … To understand what is meant by mosaic split, consider the following case. "A community initially accepts some theories and employs some methods; in other words, initially, there is one mosaic of theories and methods. Also, as a result of some events, this initially united community transforms into two different communities with two somewhat different mosaics of theories and methods."p.202 This is different than mere disagreement. ''Mosaic split'' only occurs if there are two communities that each present their different theories as accepted (in contexts like articles, conferences, textbooks and so on). That is, there is disagreement concerning the ''status'' of certain theories, and not just on the theories themselves.p.203 not just on the theories themselves.p.203)
• Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)  + (ToDo)
• Theory (Sebastien-2016)  + (Unlike Barseghyan's [[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)|original definition]] … Unlike Barseghyan's [[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)|original definition]] of ''theory'', this definition is deliberately ''neutral'' with respect to the descriptive/prescriptive divide. Thus, it allows for the existence of theories of various types and is not limited to descriptive theories.nd is not limited to descriptive theories.)
• Community Can Have Subcommunities (Overgaard-2017)  + (When dealing with a community, it might be … When dealing with a community, it might be useful to analyze it in terms of its constituent subcommunities (e.g. the community of particle physicists within the community of physicists). But such an analysis is based on an assumption that a community can consist of other communities, i.e. subcommunities. This assumption is by no means trivial; indeed, there might exist a view that each community is to be treated separately as one indivisible whole and, thus, any talk of its constituents is meaningless. According to Overgaard, communities can be said to be consisting of other communities.p. 58 Thus, there is such a thing as a subcommunity, i.e. a community that is part of a larger community.munity that is part of a larger community.)
• Support (Palider-2019)  + (When one theory is said to follow from ano … When one theory is said to follow from another, then that theory is supported by the other theory. This notion of support relies on that of [[Implication (Palider-2019)]], where support requires that one theory ''implies'' the other. Support, just like implication, is not equated to logical deduction, but just means that there is some rule-governed (or logical) connection between the supported theory and its support for the agent. As such, generally, if an agent considers one theory as evidence for another theory, then that evidence is said to support the theory, regardless of how (in)conclusive the evidence is.ess of how (in)conclusive the evidence is.)
• Normative Inference (Palider-2019)  + (Whereas [[Implication (Palider-2019)]] … Whereas [[Implication (Palider-2019)]] is an analytic relation between theories, inferences are taken to be the "movements of thought" that lead to belief revision. As argued for by Palider (2019) inferences, unlike implications, necessarily involve a normative component.p. 22 An implication alone is insufficient for an agent to revise their beliefs, or accepted theories, what is needed is that the agent take the normative stance that they should accept the theory. A '''normative inference''' is what leads an agent to taking such a normative stance.n agent to taking such a normative stance.)
• Normative Theory (Sebastien-2016)  + (While not explicitly stated, the definitio … While not explicitly stated, the definition assumes that normative propositions involve evaluation, i.e. they "say how something ''ought'' to be, what's good or bad, what's right or wrong".p. 12 In contrast with [[Descriptive Theory|''descriptive propositions'']], normative propositions do not aim to tell how things are, were, or will be, but rather what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, permissible or impermissible.undesirable, permissible or impermissible.)

• Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)  + (XXXX)

• Discipline Acceptance (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021)  + ([[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|Theor … [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|Theories]] and [[Epistemic Stances Towards Questions| questions]] can both be the subject of the epistemic stances of [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agents]]. Barseghyan (2018)Rawleigh (2018)Patton (2019) [[Discipline| Disciplines]] like biology, physics, and astrology can also be the subject of such stances. For example, biology and physics are accepted by the scientific community of the modern world as disciplines, but astrology is rejected. In our definition, a discipline is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if that agent accepts the [[Core Question| core questions]] specified in the discipline's [[Delineating Theory|delineating theory]], as well as the delineating theory itself.Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021) theory itself.Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021))
• Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)  + ([[Joshua Allen]] makes a case for this broad definition of the term. According to Allen:pp. 75-76)
• Demarcation-Acceptance Synchronism (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)  + ([[The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fr … [[The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)|The law of theory demarcation]] states that a theory is deemed as scientific only if it satisfies the demarcation criteria employed by the epistemic community at the time. [[Theory Acceptance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|The definition of theory acceptance]] suggested by [[Patrick Fraser|Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar|Sarwar]] states that an accepted theory is a ''scientific'' theory that is taken to be the best available description or prescription of its object of study. It follows from these two premises that whenever a theory is accepted, it must also have satisfied the demarcation criteria of the time. After all, if it did not, then the definition of theory acceptance is contradicted. Therefore, if the definition of theory acceptance and the law of demarcation criteria are accepted, then it must also be accepted that accepted theories satisfy the criteria of demarcation. This demarcation-acceptance synchronism is presented somewhat more…chronism is presented somewhat more…)
• The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018) is Not Tautological (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)  + ([[The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fr … [[The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)|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 conclusively 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))
• The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)  + ([[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barsegh … [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|The reformulation of the second law]] by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan makes it explicit that the law is ''not'' a tautology as it clearly forbids certain logically conceivable courses of events.pp. 33-34ly conceivable courses of events.pp. 33-34)
• The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)  + ([[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Sebastien … [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Sebastien's law of method employment]] faces several problems. Foremost among these is that it is based on an outdated ontology that assumes that methods of theory evaluation are a fundamental epistemic element. After the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|Barseghyan’s proposal]] that methods be subsumed under the category of normative theories, the third law no longer exhaustively covers all situations cases of employment. In its present form it is limited to methods, though there is no reason to think that the mechanism by which a method is employed is any different than the mechanism by which any other norm is employed.anism by which any other norm is employed.)