Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
12,097
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) (view source)
Revision as of 11:05, 20 June 2024
, 20 Juneno edit summary
|Formulated Year=2023
|Formulation File=Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023).png
|Description=TODOPandey's formulation essentially preserves the gist of [[Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)|Barseghyan and Levesley's formulation]] but fixes its wording to ensure that the theorem actually follows from its premises. Like other scientonomic rejection theorems, the question rejection theorem assumes that questions become rejected as they get pushed out of an agent's mosaic due to their incompatibility with some newly accepted elements. There are two most common scenarios of such incompatibility. In the first scenario, a question becomes rejected due to the acceptance of a new theory that happens to be incompatible with some of the question's epistemic presuppositions. As explained by Barseghyan and Levesley: <blockquote>imagine an epistemic situation where agent A initially accepts the question “What is the relationship between the four elements?” together with the theoretical presupposition that there are four elements. Suppose also that at some later time the agent discovers that there are not four but three elements. Naturally, the agent rejects both the theory of four elements and the question about the relationships between these elements: {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Question_Rejection_due_to_Incompatibility_(Barseghyan-Levesley-2021).png}} Importantly, this rejection happens regardless of whether it ever occurs to the agent to ask a new question “What is the relationship between the three elements?”. Even if the agent never accepts any further questions concerning the three elements, the question “What is the relationship between the four elements?” would still be rejected.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|pp. 14-15]]</blockquote> In the second scenario, a question is being rejected due to the acceptance of the second-order theory stating that the question is unanswerable (the latter being incompatible with the question). In the words of Barseghyan and Levesley: <blockquote>Consider [an] epistemic situation, where agent A accepts some question Q, together with the theory that Q is answerable. When agent A comes to accept that Q is unanswerable, the agent rejects question Q. The scientonomic mechanism of this rejection is through the incompatibility of question Q and the theory “Question Q is unanswerable”:[[CiteRef::Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|p. 15]] {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Question_Rejection_due_to_Unanswerability_(Barseghyan-Levesley-2021).png}}</blockquote>
|Resource=Pandey (2023)
|Prehistory=
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2024
|Accepted From Month=February
|Accepted From Day=22
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became accepted as a result of the acceptance of modification [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002|Sciento-2023-0002]]. It replaced the [[Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
