Property:Description First Paragraph
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type Text.
O
To say that the theory acceptance outcome ''not accept'' obtained as a result of a theory's assessment by a method is the same as to say that it is prescribed that the theory must not be accepted. +
To say that a theory's assessment by a method produced the outcome "not satisfied" is the same as to say that the theory conclusively failed to meet the requirements of the method. +
To say that a theory's assessment by a method produced the outcome "satisfied" is the same as to say that the theory conclusively met the requirements of the method. +
P
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.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|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".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 208]] +
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.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|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".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|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".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|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. +
In the scientonomic workflow, the discussions concerning suggested modifications should be published once a communal consensus is reached and the respective verdict is recorded in the encyclopedia. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections. While it might be tempting to only publish those discussions that caused significant disagreement in the community, such an approach alternative solution may inadvertently incentivize dissent and disagreement for the sake of getting published. In contrast, by publishing ''all'' discussions, we incentivize all commenting without skewing the incentive towards disagreement. +
As a distinct epistemic stance, [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]] is not reducible to [[Theory Acceptance|acceptance]]. +
Q
A ''question'' is a subject or area of inquiry into which epistemic communities can investigate. They are usually given in the form of an interrogative. Questions vary in their specificity and scope, from very wide (what are the properties of the universe?) to very narrow (why are there no instances of CP-violation observed in quantum chromodynamics?). +
''Question Acceptance'' refers to one of the two stances that [[Epistemic Community|epistemic communities]] can take towards [[Question (Rawleigh-2018)|questions]], with the opposite stance being ''unacceptance''. A question is said to be accepted by an epistemic community if and only if said epistemic community takes the question to be a legitimate topic of inquiry. +
Rawleigh emphasized that the process of scientific change involves not only theories and methods but also questions.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]] +
A question can be a subquestion of another question. A question ''Q'' is a subquestion of another question ''P'', if a direct answer to ''Q'' is also a partial answer to ''P''. +
Rawleigh argued that questions are an integral part of the process of scientific change.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]] +
A study of the process of scientific change reveals many cases when a question that was considered legitimate in a certain time-period became illegitimate in another period. For example, the questions such as “what is the weight of phlogiston?” or “why does some matter gain mass as it loses phlogiston?” were accepted as legitimate topics of inquiry for the most part of the 18th century. Yet, once the phlogiston theory was rejected, these questions became illegitimate. Another examples is the question “what is the distance from the earth to the sphere of stars?” that was once considered legitimate by astronomers, but is no longer accepted.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)|p. 4]] +
TODO: Add the description +
TODO: Nikki add a description +
Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.[[CiteRef::Pandey (2023)]] +
Pandey makes a case that the first law and all of its corollaries are tautological.[[CiteRef::Pandey (2023)]] +
R
A '''Reason''' is a theory that is potentially hypothetical, i.e. not accepted, that may serve serve, if accepted, as a [[Sufficient Reason (Palider-2019)]] for accepting another theory. For example, one may say that a double-blind trial will constitute a reason for accepting a drug's efficacy, even if the double-blind trial has not yet been done. +
The paradox of normative propositions arises from the following three premises: +
