Nicholas Overgaard

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
(Redirected from User:Nicholas Overgaard)
Jump to: navigation, search

Nicholas Overgaard (born 12 May 1990) is a Canadian scientonomist notable for his work related to the concepts of community and authority delegation as well as his reformulation of the second law.


Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested by Overgaard:

  • Sciento-2016-0003: Accept the notion of authority delegation. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard and Mirka Loiselle on 7 September 2016.1 The modification was accepted on 1 February 2017. There was a community consensus that the concept of authority delegation is a significant contribution to scientonomy, as it "sheds light on the mechanism by which the more local, specialized mosaics of epistemic/scientific sub-communities gives rise to the more global scientific mosaic (of *the* Scientific Community), and all in terms of theories and methods".c1 It was also noted that the concept "has already been tacitly accepted by our community"c2 as it has been incorporated in some recent scientonomic research. One further suggestion was to continue refining the concept of authority delegation by focusing on cases "where the delegating community applies its own additional criteria before accepting what the experts tell them".c3
  • Sciento-2016-0004: Provided that the notion of authority delegation is accepted, accept the notions of mutual authority delegation and one-sided authority delegation as subtypes of authority delegation. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard and Mirka Loiselle on 7 September 2016.1 The modification was accepted on 2 February 2018. Following a period of discussion, it was finally agreed that "the current definitions of authority delegation, mutual authority delegation, and one-sided authority delegation, despite their problems, are currently the best available such definitions".c1 It was noted that these definitions don't take into the account the possibility of conditional authority delegation, where community A is prepared to accept the findings of another community on a certain topic only if these findings also satisfy some additional criteria imposed by community A. It was argued that there might be cases where a community's reliance on the findings of another community might be "conditional in ways that the current authority delegation definition is too restrictive to encompass".c2 The idea of conditional delegation was found pursuit-worhty.c3 It was also stressed that these definitions are only the first step towards a deeper understanding of the mechanism of authority delegation. Scientonomists were advised to pursue the idea of deducing "theorems concerning theory acceptance and method employment in delegating mosaics".c4
  • Sciento-2017-0004: Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard and Hakob Barseghyan on 5 February 2017.2 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.c3
  • Sciento-2017-0005: Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard and Hakob Barseghyan on 5 February 2017.2 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.
  • Sciento-2017-0006: Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard and Hakob Barseghyan on 5 February 2017.2 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2017-0012: Accept a new taxonomy for group and its two sub-types - accidental group, and community. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard on 19 May 2017.3 The modification was accepted on 2 February 2018. A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"c1 and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".c2 Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of group as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.c3 Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",c4 it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".c5
  • Sciento-2017-0013: Accept that communities can consist of other communities, i.e. that there is such a thing as a sub-community. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard on 19 May 2017.3 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2017-0014: Provided that the definition of community is accepted, accept new definitions of epistemic community and non-epistemic community as sub-types of community. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard on 19 May 2017.3 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2017-0015: Provided that the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted, accept that a non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard on 19 May 2017.3 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2017-0013 and Sciento-2017-0014 all become accepted.

Theories

The following table contains all the theories formulated by Overgaard:
TitleTypeFormulationFormulated In
Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)DefinitionCommunity A is said to be delegating authority over topic x to community B iff (1) community A accepts that community B is an expert on topic x and (2) community A will accept a theory on topic x if community B says so.2016
Mutual Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)DefinitionCommunities A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff community A delegates authority over topic x to community B, and community B delegates authority over topic y to community A.2016
One-sided Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)DefinitionCommunities A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff community A delegates authority over topic x to community B, but community B doesn’t delegate any authority to community A.2016
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.2017
Community (Overgaard-2017)DefinitionA group that has a collective intentionality.2017
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveIf a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.2017
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionA method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance/Unacceptance of a Single Contender (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender.2017
Group (Overgaard-2017)DefinitionTwo or more people who share any characteristic.2017
The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe second law is not a tautology.2017
Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance/Unacceptance of Two Contenders (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories.2017
Epistemic Community (Overgaard-2017)DefinitionA community that has a collective intentionality to know the world.2017
Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Sub-Communities Exist (Overgaard-2017)DescriptiveCommunities can consist of other communities.2017
Non-Epistemic Community (Overgaard-2017)DefinitionA community that does not have a collective intentionality to know the world.2017
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionIt is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.2017
Epistemic Community Can be Part of Non-Epistemic Community (Overgaard-2017)DescriptiveA non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities.2017
Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017)DefinitionA group that does not have a collective intentionality.2017

Questions

Here are all the questions formulated by Overgaard:

Publications

Here are the works of Overgaard included in the bibliographic records of this encyclopedia:

To add a bibliographic record by this author, enter the citation key below:

 

Citation keys normally include author names followed by the publication year in brackets. E.g. Aristotle (1984), Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (1935), Musgrave and Pigden (2016), Kuhn (1970a), Lakatos and Musgrave (Eds.) (1970). If a record with that citation key already exists, you will be sent to a form to edit that page.

References

  1. a b  Overgaard, Nicholas and Loiselle, Mirka. (2016) Authority Delegation. Scientonomy 1, 11-18. Retrieved from http://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27065.
  2. a b c  Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from http://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.
  3. a b c d  Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 1, 55-62. Retrieved from http://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.