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)- 03:48, 8 October 2021 Joshua Allen talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (Machado-Marques and Patton convincingly argue that a scientonomic explanation of scientific error and its handling need not run afoul of the theory rejection theorem, the possibility of which was concernedly put forth in an open question by Mirkin and Karamehmetoglu in 2018. The authors, to much success, apply their definition of error to work through four historical episodes and show how each of the rejected propositions is often replaced by another first-order proposition, usually a direct...)
- 03:14, 8 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012 (The suggested modification proposes that a community can accept classical theories, such as the phenomenological claims of classical physics, as the best available descriptions of the phenomena they describe while acknowledging that the theories themselves may be outdated. Alliksaar engages the case study of the meteorological community, which relies on classical mechanics and classical thermodynamics as fundamental pillars of their theories about atmospheric phenomena. At the crux of this mo...)
- 23:23, 7 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (I agree that the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem. These examples support the compatibility of these elements, not just within the theoretical scientonomy framework, but also within the actual practice of science.)
- 23:17, 7 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0004 (I agree that the handling of scientific error, as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with the theory rejection theorem. The theory rejection theorem states that a theory becomes rejected when another incompatible theory is accepted. A theory can be replaced by a first-order incompatible theory. A theory can also be replaced by a second-order proposition accounting for the lack of evidence for the previously accepted first-order proposition. Scientific error, as defined b...)
- 20:08, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar have identified. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within t...)
- 20:07, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #180 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
- 15:48, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar identify. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within the...)
- 15:46, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs deleted comment #179 on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018
- 15:46, 7 October 2021 Paul Patton talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (The zeroth law of scientific change; the law of compatibility, is flawed in several respects, which Fraser and Sarwar identify. Unlike other scientonomic laws, the old law of compatibility (or zeroth law) is stated from a static perspective, invoking a hypothetical moment in time. There are many reasons why this is problematic. One is that it does not allow for the possibility that, human cognitive abilities being limited, unrecognized incompatibilities might lurk, undetected, within the...)
- 05:53, 5 October 2021 Kye Palider talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0018 (I believe this modification should be accepted. It acknowledges that there are compatibility assessments done by epistemic agents, and knowledge of compatibility is not assumed for the agent, but is something arrived at by the agent. It also allows for compatibility assessments to change over time in the face of new information, e.g. figuring out there is a contradiction between two theories potentially long after they have been proposed. Overall, this new law of compatibility is a substantia...)
- 03:46, 1 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2017-0006 (The proposed modification seeks to answer the question of what may be inferred about a theory’s assessment outcome based on whether the theory was accepted, unaccepted, or the cause of a mosaic split. In light of the acceptance of modification 2017-0004 (reformulation of the second law), this suggested modification may be interpreted as a reasonable extension/ application of its predecessor. The suggested modification proposes an interesting and fruitful guide for investigating theory asses...)
- 03:45, 1 October 2021 Tessa Ng talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2018-0016 (The suggested modification proposes that compatibility is an epistemic stance agents can take towards elements in and outside of mosaics. A key qualifier of the suggested compatibility stance is that it is distinct. In addition to the existing epistemic stances of acceptance, use, pursuit, and employment, compatibility can be used to describe a particular unexplored relation between epistemic elements that the other stances cannot. Moreover, compatibility is a stance that may be taken in add...)
- 00:46, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (Though I agree with you that error should always be relative to an epistemic agent and their employed methods -- and that the proposed notion of error is distinct from absolute error -- I do wonder whether further distinction, accounting for instances of honest error and misconduct, would further improve our understanding of these shifts in theory acceptance.)
- 00:32, 1 October 2021 Carlin Henikoff talk contribs posted a new comment on Modification talk:Sciento-2021-0003 (I agree that we should accept the definition of error, stating that an epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method. One of the main goals of observational scientonomy is to develop a Tree of Knowledge providing comprehensive documentation of individual mosaics and their changes through time. In order to do this effectively, we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accep...)
- 17:21, 24 September 2021 Hakob Barseghyan talk contribs deleted comment #172 on Modification talk:Sciento-2019-0012
- 05:43, 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. Alliksa...)
- 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...)
