Comments log

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a log of comments.

Logs
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
  • 17:47, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (I don't see any issue with epistemic communities enveloping religions as well as scientific communities. Given communities can exist within communities this doesn't create any problems (if the [Sciento-2017-0013] modification is accepted). If any furth...)
  • 17:42, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0015 (Once again, I'm struggling to see the purpose of this clarification in terms of its sheer utility. If we accept this modification why not accept that accidental groups can consists of larger accidental groups and add that in as a separate modification?...)
  • 17:36, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (Assuming the previous modification is accepted, there seem to be no restrictions in place stopping a community from being made up of multiple communities. Verdict: Accept.)
  • 17:31, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups (as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but...)
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs deleted comment #45 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 17:23, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (Before I make any inquiries into what seems to be very intuitive I'd like to say I want to accept this modification. It seems that groups can either be communities, or they can just remain groups(as accidental groups). Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but t...)
  • 16:58, 2 July 2017 Maxim Mirkin talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0003 (I agree with this modification. Given the lack of textbooks, encyclopedias, etc. it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM. There seems to be no immediate or obvious alternative and insofar as cl...)
  • 02:15, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0014 (If we accept this definition of ''epistemic community'', then we must also be able to answer the questions of what it means have the collective intentionality to "know the world"? Does the simple act of claiming that your community is attempting to kno...)
  • 01:42, 2 July 2017 Jacob MacKinnon talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (That communities consist of sub-communities is an apt conclusion. I see no reason to reject the existence of sub-communities. The examples provided by Nicholas sufficiently demonstrate how one community can be a conglomeration of sub-communities. Verd...)
  • 20:55, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0013 (There doesn't seem to be any reason for denying this. It seems almost trivial that a community can in principle consist of smaller communities. At the moment, the existence of these sub-communities doesn't strike me as problematic. I don't think we can...)
  • 20:48, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those unusual cases when a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its official publication. It is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unoffici...)
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #39 on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012
  • 20:46, 19 May 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0012 (This is one of those typical cases where a modification is ''de facto'' accepted even before its publication. it is safe to say that the definitions of ''group'', ''accidental group'', and ''community'' suggested by Overgaard have been unofficially acc...)
  • 03:46, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict is also to '''accept''' the modification without qualms. Following the resolution of the paradox of normative propositions, there seems no good reason to exclude normative theories from the TSC, and many reasons why they should be included....)
  • 03:36, 16 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (Modern science involves specialization and a division of labor. Thus instances where scientific communities will rely on the expertise of other scientific communities are all pervasive. The two definitions given here for one-sided and mutual authority...)
  • 17:10, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0004 (I support acceptance of the modification. The reason for modifying the definition of employed method requires a bit more explanation than was given. In the new second law, a theory may be accepted into the mosaic if its assessment is inconclusive. The...)
  • 16:30, 15 February 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (When the TSC was formulated, the status of normative propositions in the mosaic was unclear. Now that the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed to accommodate normative propositions in the mosaic. 'T...)
  • 01:30, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (My verdict, too, is to accept this modification. We have an understanding of what Zoe means by "normative propositions", and I believe they certainly play a role in the process of scientific change. So why not adopt the belief that these normative prop...)
  • 01:25, 2 February 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (I agree with Hakob here - if we're going to have any sort of conversation about whether or not any form of normative propositions exist in our scientonomic worldview, then we need to start from a definition. As is always the case, if we disagree later...)
  • 22:03, 1 February 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I agree with Paul that we need to accept the current definition to have something to work with, but we should also keep in mind that sometimes authority delegation seems to require an additional layer of filtering by the delegating community. Paul's ex...)
  • 18:02, 31 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0002 (After the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, I see no obstacles for including ''normative propositions'' into the mosaic. The paradox was the reason why normative propositions (such as those of...)
  • 17:59, 31 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0001 (These new definitions are an important addition to theoretical scientonomy. Since the paradox of normative propositions has been solved (see modification Sciento-2016-0001), we can now adjust our taxonomy to have a de...)
  • 21:23, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #27 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 21:23, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #28 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 21:22, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (My verdict is to accept the definition of authority delegation given, but I don’t accept all of the claims made for it in the paper. The concept of passive authority delegation as stated in the paper is clear, and may well be a valid one for describi...)
  • 19:57, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (Verdict: accept- the concept does work, and can be applied in some cases, such as the relationship between communities whose primary goal is epistemic and communities that have some other goal, for which knowledge is needed. But the concept of passive...)
  • 19:44, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #26 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003
  • 19:44, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (The concept of authority delegation as stated in the paper is clear, and may well be a valid one for describing some relationships between communities, but I suspect that given its current definition its value will be very limited. The relationship tha...)
  • 17:37, 26 January 2017 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I'm not sure that the current definition captures the complex relationship between interacting scientific communities. Theoretical physicists clearly regard the results of experimental physicists as critically relevant to assessing their theories. Expe...)
  • 19:49, 24 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0004 (This modification introduces two very important concepts to the field of scientonomy - ''one-sided'' authority delegation and mutual authority delegation. We have been already actively using this terminology in our research, so it is time we openly acc...)
  • 19:16, 19 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (I see the distinction being made and if the community would feel more comfortable having the modification separated into two, then I see no reason not to do so. Clearly articulating the ontology and taxonomy of the TSC is very important for future rese...)
  • 21:20, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #23 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001
  • 21:20, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (This is ''italic'', and this is '''bold''', and this is a link)
  • 05:43, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (I agree with Greg: this is a great contribution to the field of scientonomy. In fact, it is safe to say that this modification has already been tacitly accepted by our community, since many of us rely on the idea of authority delegation in our own rese...)
  • 05:39, 18 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Concerning Greg's suggested "aesthetic" adjustment, I think we need to stick to explicitly mentioning ''methods and theories'' since "other elements of the mosaic of the time" may mean three different things: # accepted theories only; # other employed...)
  • 04:14, 18 January 2017 Gregory Rupik talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (This formulation of the third law makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance. (Verdict: '''accept'''.) I do have an alternative proposal for how this modified version of the law is formulated, however. The suggesti...)
  • 03:30, 18 January 2017 Gregory Rupik talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0003 (Overgaard and Loiselle's contribution to Scientonomy, here, is a significant one. Not only does the paper identify and illustrate a phenomenon that is ubiquitous in science (the deference of one scientific community to the expert opinion of another), b...)
  • 03:47, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Now I see Nick's point. Indeed, separating this modification into two makes sense: ontological modifications should not be introduced through mere definitions. I think this is a point that we haven't properly appreciated until now and I am clearly at f...)
  • 03:45, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #17 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002
  • 03:44, 17 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Now I see Nick's point. Indeed, separating this modification into two makes sense: ontological modifications should not be introduced through mere definitions. I think this is a point that we haven't properly appreciated until now and I am clearly at f...)
  • 20:57, 16 January 2017 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (So it seems to me like there are two modifications are the heart of this single modification - one ontological, the other definitional. This is similar to Hakob's original suggestion to split the mosaic into two separate mosaics (but also different in...)
  • 18:15, 10 January 2017 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (I agree with Zoe. There are two important points here: 1. Concerning my earlier suggestion to split this modification into two, I withdraw it, as I believe Zoe is correct here: it is impossible to accept that theories can be normative or descriptive w...)
  • 23:08, 9 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Nicholas raises a good point about the confusion that might arise if the term "object" is used to refer to that which a normative theory prescribes. In ordinary language an "object" typically refers to a tangible substance and I can see how someone unf...)
  • 22:53, 9 January 2017 Zoe Sebastien talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (Hakob clearly articulates why it is so important to note that an employed method need not follow from all the accepted theories of the time and I agree with him that a modification that articulates this point should be accepted. Nicholas is right to...)
  • 15:14, 26 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (If my understanding is correct, Overgaard has no issue with bringing normative propositions into the mosaic. But he has an objection against the idea that normative theories can prescribe a certain ''object''. I agree that this part is somewhat clumsy....)
  • 01:41, 17 November 2016 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Sebastien’s aim here – to introduce normative propositions into the scientific mosaic – is an important step towards broadening the scope of our scientonomic analyses. However, I am not convinced that the new taxonomy – specifically the definit...)
  • 20:55, 16 November 2016 Nicholas Overgaard talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (I don't think the modification to the third law is necessary to solve the paradox of normative propositions. It seemed like we had always understood the third law as saying that methods change not in relation to all employed methods, but only in relati...)
  • 17:11, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002 (Since the new formulation of the third law solves the paradox of normative propositions, there is no reason to keep them out of the mosaic. Thus, ''theory'' should be redefined and two new concepts - ''normative theory'' and ''descriptive theory'' - sh...)
  • 17:10, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #5 on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0002
  • 17:09, 6 November 2016 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2016-0001 (The new formulation of the second law proposed by Sebastien clarifies a very important point, i.e. that an employed method shouldn't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories of the time. This solves the paradox of normative propositions; now a...)
(newest | oldest) View ( | ) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:Log/comments"