Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
12,161
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
|Date Suggested Day=26
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Paul Patton,
|Resource=Patton (2019)
|Preamble=Tools and instruments, from a thermometer or a ruler to the Large Hadron Collider or the Hubble Space Telescope clearly play a central role in the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]].[[CiteRef::Patton (2019)]] However, the role of tools and instruments in the process of scientific change is yet to be understood in scientonomy. Existing roles available within scientonomic theory do not seem appropriate. It does not seem plausible, for example, to treat tools and instruments as subjects of [[Authority Delegation|authority delegation]]. This is because the scientific data produced with epistemic tools is itself a kind of [[Theory|theory]], and therefore requires [[Mechanism of Theory Acceptance|assessment]] under the [[Method|employed method]] of the time. A tool or instrument is not capable of assessing its own data under the employed method, since that would require cognitive abilities, such as the ability to semantically understand propositions, which are still beyond the bounds of current artificial intelligence. Such an assessment requires an [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agent]] intimately familiar with theories specifying the conditions under which the tool is a reliable source of knowledge.[[CiteRef::Patton (2019)]] Thus, a clear scientonomic notion of [[Epistemic Tool|epistemic tool]] is required.
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Epistemic_Tool_Symbol_(Patton-2019).png}}
|To Accept=Epistemic Tool (Patton-2019),Epistemic Tool Exists
|Automatic=No
|Verdict=OpenAccepted|Date Assessed Year=2024|Date Assessed Month=February|Date Assessed Day=23
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
|Verdict Rationale=At the 2024 workshop, there was minimal discussion of this modification, as workshop participants were generally in favor of its acceptance. Jamie Shaw and Hakob Barseghyan expressed some misgivings about the definition and hoped that it could be made more succinct in the future. Specifically, it was noted that this formulation might in fact be a theorem or a law explaining how tools become epistemic tools rather than a definition. Yet, given this was the community’s only proposed definition of ''epistemic tool'', they saw it as worth accepting with that caveat. Rebecca Muscant’s comment about what happens with systems of tools, as well as specifications that the definition only applies to physical tools (in the case of AI, only the hardware, not the software is a tool), further highlighted the need for the community to clarify the dynamics content implied by the definition in the future. At this point, the modification was accepted unanimously.
|Verdict Chart=Sciento-2019-0016 Voting Results.png
|Superseded By=
}}
