Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0015

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Revision as of 15:15, 26 March 2019 by Hakob Barseghyan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{ModificationTalk}}")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Provide your comments regarding the suggested modification here. At minimum you need to indicate whether you think the modification is acceptable, why "yes" or why "no". The key question here is not whether the modification is flawless - no modification ever is. The key question is whether the modification, if accepted, will provide an overall improvement to our communal knowledge.

Please follow the instructions in the guidelines for readers.


Hakob Barseghyan

3 months ago
Score 0

This modification comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions in our original theory. The current zeroth law was meant to highlight the fact that consistency and compatibility are not the same thing. While that is all well and good, we missed the fact that the law doesn't really say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of compatibility. I agree with the authors that the law as it currently stands lacks empirical content. I believe this modification as well as modification 2018-0018 provide a remedy.

The suggested definition of compatibility criteria is, I believe, acceptable as it captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community. It is also clear to me that the compatibility corollary follows from this definition.

In short my verdict is that the modification is to be accepted.

Paul Patton

3 months ago
Score 0
The authors argue convincingly that the Zeroth Law of scientific change is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility. A compatibility corollary follows from this definition and the observation that the elements of a mosaic co-exist at any one moment of time. Together these two elements recover the content of the Zeroth Law. The authors have argued that the compatibility corollary can replace the Zeroth law and recover the content of the rejection theorems. So far as I can tell, this modification seems reasonable and appropriate, and I believe it should be accepted.

You are not allowed to post comments.