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)- 16:40, 7 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0014 (At the 2023 scientonomy workshop, it was determined that this modification presupposes the acceptance of 2018-0013, even though the statement of the modification in the original journal article and its initial description on the encyclopedia page failed to indicate this. Based on the comments on the modification left by Ameer Sarwar, Hakob Barseghyan, Tessa Ng, and Josh Allen, the participants unanimously agreed that the modification presupposed 2018-0013. This now meant that the modification...)
- 16:38, 7 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0013 (The modification was discussed during the 2023 workshop. It was noted that there is a forthcoming paper on local stances, which may help to address some of the community’s concerns and questions about this modification. Hakob Barseghyan suggested that the stance of scientificity is perhaps best understood as a local stance. Gregory Rupik wondered if there are any global stances, i.e. whether even acceptance can be said to be a global stance. To this, Hakob Barsgehyan responded that, unlike al...)
- 15:28, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (At the 2023 Scientonomy Workshop, the authors of the modification introduced some clarifications before it was discussed and voted upon. Namely, Hakob Barseghyan withdrew his comment about concerns about funding the book prize, and Jamie Shaw clarified that the line about a “CV-worthy line” was specifically catered towards incentivizing early-career scholars. The authors also indicated that continual commentating could allow for several prizes in various categories to reward more participants...)
- 15:28, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #201 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004
- 15:27, 6 March 2023 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0004 (At the 2023 Scientonomy Workshop, the authors of the modification introduced some clarifications before it was discussed and voted upon. Namely, Hakob Barseghyan withdrew his comment about concerns about funding the book prize, and Jamie Shaw clarified that the line about a “CV-worthy line” was specifically catered towards incentivizing early-career scholars. The authors also indicated that continual commentating could allow for several prizes in various categories to reward more participants...)
- 16:19, 25 February 2023 Grace Shan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (I believe that the phenomenon of element decay is viable as a theoretical concept, and I think this paper has brought to light the pursuit-worthiness of the topic. However, I believe the actual historical existence of element decay needs to be substantiated by further observational studies following this inaugural one (which was excellently researched). The task of finding positive evidence in observational scientonomy—for example, indicators of theory acceptance or indicators of collective i...)
- 16:37, 30 October 2022 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2022-0002 (I believe this is a very welcome addition to scientonomic body of knowledge. Rawleigh makes a strong case for the new law of method employment, which has clear advantages over the current third law. I agree with Rawleigh, that there doesn't seem to be any prima facie reasons to think that the mechanism of method employment should be somehow different from the mechanism of norm employment in general. Thus, until shown otherwise, I believe we should accept Rawleigh's formulation of the law of n...)
- 20:53, 21 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0010 (Having read “Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology,“ I see no issues with the definitions proposed by Palider and I think they constitute an important addition which will prove useful in further scientonomic research. In fact, it is because they have already seen use in scientonomic scholarship that, in the absence of any dissent from the community, it seems key to accept these definitions. Namely, the specific formulations of “reason” and “sufficient reason” provide much of the basis for th...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 14:45, 18 October 2022 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (I agree with both of the previous commentators: this doesn't seem to be the best solution, at least at this stage. In addition to the reasons mentioned by previous commentators, I think the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown. Verdict: Reject)
- 20:24, 14 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0001 (As Carlin points out, there is clear value in distinguishing logical and epistemic presuppositions in scientonomic diagrams, and it is also necessary to distinguish between them based on the proposed Law of Question Acceptance. For example, if we are diagramming a historical case studies that involve instances of actual documented question acceptance, we cannot necessarily excise certain logical presuppositions of a question but we must indicate their separation from the epistemic presupposit...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 20:09, 14 October 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0008 (I am also uncomfortable with this modification. Firstly, I fail to see how it meaningfully addresses one issue referenced in the preamble: “Specifically, people may not want to accept the modification, but may not want to object to it explicitly for a variety of reasons. For instance, some people may not wish to be seen as impeding the modification's acceptance.” This concept that the lack of explicit objection not being the same as a total lack of objection/disagreement does not then squar...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 19:07, 29 September 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0009 (Clarifying that my verdict is to not accept the modification in its current state.)
- 22:03, 23 September 2022 Izzy Friesen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0009 (I would be more comfortable accepting this modification if the boundaries on “logic” as put forth in Palider (2019) are better reflected in this definition itself. In Palider (2019), “logical” is defined as simply something “rule-governed” (Palider, 20). However, it is then stated that this notion of logic is a purely alethic one (20). The concept of an agent’s “rules of implication,” which would need to be accepted by that agent appears several times later in the paper without a definition (...) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
- 16:01, 14 December 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0017 (I agree with Deivide that the modification is to be accepted. It introduces a necessary rewording in the definitions of ''authority delegation'' and its species. I find this modification uncontroversial, since, as such, it merely attempts to capture what is already ''de facto'' accepted - namely, the idea that authority can be delegated by and to epistemic agents of all kinds (both communal and individual). This is confirmed by the fact that the canonical examples of authority delegation ofte...)
- 15:55, 14 December 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0015 (This modification aims to codify our ''de facto'' communal stance towards the ontology of epistemic agents. Many recent articles published in the journal assume this ontology of epistemic agents. Barseghyan and Levesley (2021), for instance, use exclusively the term ''epistemic agent''. Similarly, in their paper on error handling, Machado-Marques and Patton (2021) consider examples not only of scientific communities but also of individual epistemic agents. This also goes for many earlier pape...)
- 18:30, 12 December 2021 Deivide Garcia talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0017 (ON "Accept the definitions of authority delegation, and its subtypes, that generalize the currently accepted definitions to apply to all epistemic agents, rather than only communities." Yes. This proposal of delegation finds no logical objection. Moreover, although it could face so difficulty to be proven true from a historical perspective, especially in specific fields, like natural sciences, the proposed modification of delegation to all epistemic agents, rather only communities, finds no...)
- 03:49, 22 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (Element decay, as characterized by Oh, involves the departure of an element from an agent’s mosaic in the absence of a re-assessment or rejection by the agent. Oh presents five case studies, which intuitively seem, at first blush, to be contenders for historical episodes in which the phenomenon of element decay has transpired. Oh justifies the use of three necessary indicators of theory decay - agent continuity, change from theory acceptance to unacceptance, and theory unacceptance without as...)
- 04:21, 15 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (Far from limiting the agreed upon ‘scope’ of science to a more modern conception of what the discipline entails by deeming it to have originated in earnest around the time of the Enlightenment - a view modern scientists are often guilty of holding - scientonomy takes a broad, universal view of science. As Fatigati mentions, Barseghyan (2015) has previously discussed the challenge this approach poses for the observational side of scientonomy. As we look to understand scientific mosaics from fu...)
- 01:51, 15 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0005 (I do NOT agree that the scientonomic community should accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon. It seems counterintuitive to expect a given community to be responsible for making existential claims regarding phenomena which lie beyond their community’s scope. From this it follows that it is not the scientonomic community’s place to determine whether element decay exists, as it is beyond the scope of scientonomy. Especially given the limited set of i...)
- 03:55, 8 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (It is clear that errors arise in science. They can put even prestigious journals like Nature in the position of needing to publish retractions, as the authors demonstrate with the ‘Pulsar Planet’ case, and can elude the broader scientific community for years, as seen with the ‘Piltdown Man’ case. Nonetheless, scientonomy currently lacks an accepted definition for ‘error’. The need to create one is made all the more clear and pressing when one attempts to address Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu’s op...)
