Comments log
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a log of comments.
(newest | oldest) View (newer 20 | older 20) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)- 05:40, 24 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (In his paper, Alliksaar argues for the acceptance of a distinction between theories’ ontological and phenomenological claims, which could be used to more precisely determine whether or not a theory is (or has been) accepted. I do indeed think this distinction has the potential to serve observational scientonomy. However, I remain skeptical of the interpretation put forth on meteorology’s acceptance of classical theories, even if that acceptance is taken to be purely phenomenological. Alliksaa...)
- 00:39, 24 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0002 (I agree that we should accept the law of question acceptance. For in order to practically accept, pursue, or employ theories answering questions, we must be able to demarcate those questions which are acceptable. For purposes of mapping belief systems, not only do we need to be able to accept questions without incurring combinatorially explosive/restrictive issues of presupposition, but we need a law of question acceptance which pragmatically restricts the set of all possibly acceptable quest...)
- 23:40, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification looks to lay the foundation for a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. This is an important area to develop as current scientonomic understanding of the matter is indeed lacking. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in scientonomy would make the acceptance of scientificity as an epistemic stance premature at this juncture. The three stances accepted in scientonomy - acceptance, use, and pursuit - are...)
- 23:34, 23 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. Since, however, the discussion over whether or not to accept scien...)
- 21:21, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification proposes that scientificity is an epistemic stance agents can take towards theories. Inherent in the suggestion is that the stance can be taken at any time and in any context towards a theory. Moreover, the modification raises several prudent questions to be accepted, namely what scientificity is and whether it is a stance that can be taken towards methods and questions, as well as theories. At first glance, the modification appears simple and useful for evaluatin...)
- 03:19, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
- 02:59, 23 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (The suggested modification proposes a further qualification of the relationship between epistemic and non-epistemic communities. Assuming the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted and the existence of sub-communities is also accepted, the modification puts forward that epistemic communities can constitute a non-epistemic community, or at least be a sub-group within the larger non-epistemic group. In light of the pertinent example of Google, it seems immedia...)
- 18:19, 22 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
- 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #161 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014
- 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #162 on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005
- 15:36, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #164 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013
- 11:52, 22 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #163 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 18:59, 19 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
- 15:56, 18 September 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (Sarwar and Fraser seem to be here attempting to bring the accepted epistemic stances further into alignment with the accepted components of employed methods - demarcation criteria, in particular - by formulating a scientonomic law to explain how demarcation criteria function within a mosaic. I agree that this is a worthwhile exercise. They argue that such a task requires a new epistemic stance, which they call 'scientificity'. However, I think the currently accepted framework for stances in s...)
- 03:11, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (The suggested modification engages a meaningful concept in scientonomy, which is that of element decay. According to the First Law of scientific change, also known as the Law of Scientific Inertia, elements in a mosaic ought to remain present in a mosaic unless they are superseded by alternative elements. It goes without saying that as science has progressed, various elements have fallen out of mosaics without replacement due to a host of factors. This phenomenon, which is a direct violation...)
- 03:08, 17 September 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (The suggested modification, while interesting and potentially useful, seems to me too implausible to successfully implement due to the equivocality of the term “scientificity” throughout the history of science. It goes without saying that what qualifies as “scientific” has seldom been easily construed from culture to culture and era to era, hence the need for demarcation. However, although demarcation plays an integral role in scientonomy by distinguishing activities relevant to our practice,...)
- 00:03, 17 September 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0001 (I agree that the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition should be accepted. The role of presupposition acceptance necessary to subsequent question acceptance -- as outlined by the law of question acceptance -- diverges from the notion of “supposition” central to the analysis of argument structures in logic. Whereas a question may only be accepted if all its epistemic presuppositions are accepted, an argument could very well be deemed logically valid without the ac...)
- 19:52, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (The historical cases discussed by Patton and Machado-Marques show convincingly that instances of scientific error handling are in full accord with ''the theory rejection theorem'', currently accepted in scientonomy. Specifically, they show that the rejection of an erroneously accepted theory is a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories. I fully agree with their treatment of scientific error. My verdict: '''accept'''.)
- 19:45, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Historians and philosophers customarily speak of scientific errors, yet the notion itself still has no accepted scientonomic definition. Building on the earlier unpublished essay by Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu, Patton and Machado-Marques suggest a definition of ''Error'' that fills in this gap. The definition, I believe, succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method. As such, this not...)
- 18:38, 8 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (Given the seemingly numerous historical cases of lost and rediscovered knowledge, it seems as though some accepted theories and questions sometimes stop being accepted without any deliberation on the agent's part. This is what the author calls ''element decay''. Therefore, it is important to inquire whether such a decay of theories and questions actually takes place in the process of scientific change. I believe, the author does an excellent job showing that locating actual instances of eleme...)
