scholarly journals Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 13-38
Author(s):  
Hakob Barseghyan
Keyword(s):  
Normative Theory ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Epistemic Agent ◽  
Theory Evaluation ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Previous Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Descriptive Theories ◽  
Theory Acceptance

Recent developments in theoretical scientonomy coupled with a reflection on the practice of the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy all suggest that the ontology of scientific change currently accepted in scientonomy has serious flaws. The new ontology, suggested in this paper, solves some of the issues permeating the current ontology. Building on Rawleigh’s suggestion, it considers a theory as an attempt to answer a certain question. It also introduces the category of definition as a subtype of theory. It also reveals that methods and methodologies of the currently accepted ontology do not differ from the perspective of their propositional content and, thus, belong to the same class of epistemic elements. This is captured in the new definition of method as a set of criteria for theory evaluation. It is also argued that methods are a subtype of normative theories. It is shown that normative theories of all types, including methods, ethical norms, and aesthetic norms, can be both accepted and employed. Finally, a new definition of scientific mosaic is suggested to fit the new ontology.   Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0005]: Accept the following definitions of method and methodology: Method ≡ a set of criteria for theory evaluation.  Methodology ≡ a normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. Reject the previous definitions of method and methodology. [Sciento-2018-0006]: Accept the following ontology of epistemic elements, where:  Each theory is an attempt to answer a certain question. Theories can be of three types – descriptive, normative, or definitions. Method is a subtype of normative theory. Questions as well as theories of all types – including methods – can be accepted. Normative theories of all types can be employed; the name of the stance is norm employment. Accept the following definition of theory acceptance: Theory acceptance ≡ a theory is said to be accepted by the epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question. Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of inquiry: Role of Definitions in Scientific Change: Do definitions play any distinct role in the process of scientific change, or do they only exhibit the exact same patterns as descriptive and normative theories? Reducibility of Definitions: Are definitions a distinct subtype of theory, or are they somehow reducible to descriptive theories and/or normative theories? Reject the previous ontology of epistemic elements and the previous definition of theory acceptance. [Sciento-2018-0007]: Accept the following definition of definition: Definition ≡ A statement of the meaning of a term. [Sciento-2018-0008]: Provided that modification [Sciento-2018-0006] is accepted, accept the following definition of norm employment: Norm Employment ≡ a norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the epistemic agent.  [Sciento-2018-0009]: Accept the new definition of scientific mosaic: Scientific Mosaic ≡ a set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by the epistemic agent.  Reject the previous definition of scientific mosaic. [Sciento-2018-0010]: Accept that: Epistemic stances of all types can be taken explicitly and/or implicitly. Epistemic elements of all types can be explicit and/or implicit. Accept the following question as a legitimate topic of inquiry: Tracing Implicit/Explicit: Should observational scientonomy trace when a certain stance towards an epistemic element was taken explicitly or implicitly? What are the practical considerations for and against collecting and storing this data?

scholarly journals The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
William Rawleigh
Keyword(s):  
Basic Element ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Semantic Structure ◽  
Epistemic Agent ◽  
Distinct Class ◽  
Epistemic Stance ◽  
The Status ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Theory Acceptance ◽  
Scientific Questions

The currently accepted scientonomic ontology includes two classes of epistemic elements – theories and methods. However, the ontology underlying the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy includes questions/topics as a basic element of its semantic structure. Ideally there should be no discrepancy between the accepted ontology of theoretical scientonomy and that of the Encyclopedia.  I argue that questions constitute a distinct class of epistemic elements as they are not reducible to other elements that undergo scientific change – theories or methods. I discuss and reject two attempts at reducing questions to either descriptive or normative theories. According to the descriptive-epistemic account, scientific questions can be logically reduced to descriptive propositions, while according to the normative-epistemic account, they can be reduced to normative propositions. I show that these interpretations are incapable of capturing the propositional content expressed by questions; any possible reduction is carried at the expense of losing the essential characteristic of questions. Further, I find that the attempts to reduce questions to theories introduce an infinite regress, where a theory is an attempt to answer a question, which is itself a theory which answers another question, ad infintum. Instead, I propose to incorporate the question-answer semantic structure from erotetic logic in which questions constitute a distinct class of elements irreducible to propositions. An acceptance of questions into scientonomic ontology as a separate class of epistemic elements suggests a new avenue of research into the mechanism of question acceptance and rejection, i.e. how epistemic communities come to accept certain questions as legitimate and others as illegitimate. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0001]: Accept the following definition of question: Question ≡ a topic of inquiry. [Sciento-2018-0002]: Accept the ontology of epistemic elements with theories, methods, and questions as distinct epistemic elements. Reject the previously accepted ontology of epistemic elements. [Sciento-2018-0003]: Provided that modification [Sciento-2018-0002] is accepted, accept that the epistemic stance that can be taken by an epistemic agent towards a question is question acceptance (the opposite is unacceptance), defined as follows:  Question Acceptance ≡ a question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry. [Sciento-2018-0004]: Provided that modifications [Sciento-2018-0002] and [Sciento-2018-0003] are accepted, accept the following question as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry:  Mechanism of Question Acceptance: How do questions become accepted as legitimate? What is the mechanism of question acceptance?  Indicators of Question Acceptance: What are the historical indicators of theory acceptance? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a question was accepted as a legitimate topic of inquiry by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?

scholarly journals Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63-89
Author(s):  
Paul Patton
Keyword(s):  
Physical Object ◽  
Particle Accelerator ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Epistemic Agent ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Epistemic Stances

The only subtype of epistemic agent currently recognized within scientonomy is community. The place of both individuals and epistemic tools in the scientonomic ontology is yet to be clarified. This paper extends the scientonomic ontology to include epistemic agents and epistemic tools as well as their relationship to one another. Epistemic agent is defined as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. These stances must be taken intentionally, that is, based on a semantic understanding of the epistemic element in question and its available alternatives, with reason, and for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. I argue that there can be both communal and individual epistemic agents. Epistemic agents are linked by relationships of authority delegation based on their differing areas of expertise. Having established the role of epistemic agents in the process of scientific change, I then turn to the role of epistemic tools, such as a thermometer, a text, or a particle accelerator in epistemic activities. I argue that epistemic tools play a different role in scientific change than do epistemic agents. This role is specified by an agent’s employed method. A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for some epistemic agent if there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of the agent. An agent is said to rely on such a tool. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2019-0014]: Accept the following definition of epistemic agent: Epsitemic Agent ≡ an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. [Sciento-2019-0015]: Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the following question as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry: Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals: do the scientonomic laws apply to individual epistemic agents? [Sciento-2019-0016]: Accept the term epistemic tool, with the following definition: Epistemic Tool ≡ a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. [Sciento-2019-0017]: Accept the following definition of authority delegation, which generalizes the currently accepted definition to apply to all epistemic agents: Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so. Also accept the following redefinitions of subtypes of authority delegation, including mutual authority delegation, one-sided authority delegation, singular authority delegation, multiple authority delegation, hierarchical authority delegation, and non-hierarchical authority delegation: Mutual Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A. One-Sided Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A. Singular Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent. Multiple Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agents. Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x. Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x. [Sciento-2019-0018]: Accept the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Accept the following definition of tool reliance: Tool Reliance ≡ an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.

scholarly journals The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Zoe Sebastien
Keyword(s):  
Logical Consequence ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Status ◽  
Third Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Theory Acceptance

The scope of the Theory of Scientific Change (TSC) encompasses any and all changes that occur in a given scientific mosaic, the set of all methods employed and theories accepted at a given time by a given scientific community. Currently, theory is defined as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something. This definition excludes normative propositions from the scope of the TSC. Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed scientific methods are known to conflict with professed methodologies. This seems to violate the third and zeroth laws of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where methodologies and methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific mosaic are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another. In this paper, I argue that normative propositions such as methodologies can be included in the scientific mosaic as accepted theories without generating a paradox and that neither the third nor zeroth laws of scientific change need be violated. I outline my solution to the paradox of normative theories and conclude by describing some new and exciting avenues for future research that are now open.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2016-0001]: Accept the following reformulation of the third law:The third law ≡ a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. Consequently, accept that there is no paradox of normative theories: when an employed method and an accepted methodology are logically inconsistent with one another; it merely indicates that the employed method isn’t a logical consequence of the accepted methodology. By the third law, the employed method still follows from some accepted theories, but not from this particular methodology.  Reject the previous formulation of the third law; it can remain in use for educational purposes. [Sciento-2016-0002]: Provided that the preceding modification [Sciento-2016-0001] is accepted, accept the following taxonomy for theory, descriptive theory, normative theory, and methodology:Theory ≡ a set of propositions.Descriptive theory ≡ a theory that attempts to describe something.Normative theory ≡ a theory that attempts to prescribe something. Methodology ≡ a normative theory that prescribes the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.Modify the definition of theory acceptance to make it possible for both descriptive and normative theories to be accepted:Theory Acceptance ≡ a theory is said to be accepted if it is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object. Reject the previous definitions of theory, methodology, and theory acceptance. 

Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke B. Chambers ◽  
Joachim J. Savelsberg
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Change ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Mass Violence ◽  
Sociological Factors ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Cultural Shifts

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are among the most deadly human-made catastrophes. Together with other forms of government violence, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, the death toll they caused during the 20th century alone approximates 200 million. This is an estimated ten times higher than the number of deaths resulting from all violence committed in civil society during the same period. Yet the definition of genocide, its perception as a social problem, and the designation of responsible actors as criminals are all relatively recent. Globalization, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and cultural shifts are interrelated contributors to this process of redefinition. While genocide and ethnic cleansing often appear to be unpredictable and chaotic, they nonetheless underlie a socio-logic across time and space. As the field of study evolved, scholars debated the role of authority and ideology in enabling violence. Today, consensus has shifted away from deterministic explanations about intrinsic hatred engrained in particular groups to sociological factors. They include the role of political regimes, war, organization, and narratives of ethnic hatred, each of which can play a role in facilitating violence. Recent developments also include the creation of new institutional mechanisms that seek to punish perpetrators and prevent the occurrence of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Among them are criminal justice responses that work potentially through deterrence, but also—more fundamentally—through the initiation of cultural change. Prosecutions, as well as supplemental mechanisms such as truth commissions, may indeed lead to a radical shift in the perception of mass violence and those responsible for it, thereby delegitimizing genocidal and ethnic cleansing campaigns.

SOME FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF SEMICLASSICAL AND QUANTUM GRAVITY

1989 ◽  
Vol 04 (18) ◽  
pp. 4735-4818 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. PADMANABHAN
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Gravity ◽  
Semiclassical Limit ◽  
Vacuum Fluctuations ◽  
Constraint Equations ◽  
Semiclassical Gravity ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of

Some recent developments in the study of quantum gravity and its semiclassical limit are reviewed. The discussion includes the role of constraint equations in quantization, the definition of 'time' in the semiclassical limit, the various forms of 'backreaction' in semiclassical gravity and the role of vacuum fluctuations in quantum gravity.

scholarly journals Reformulating the Second Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 29-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Patton ◽  
Nicholas Overgaard ◽  
Hakob Barseghyan
Keyword(s):  
Second Law ◽  
Causal Connection ◽  
Acceptance Criteria ◽  
Current Formulation ◽  
Previous Formulation ◽  
Previous Definition ◽  
Assessment Outcomes ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
New Formulation ◽  
Theory Acceptance

The current formulation of the second law is flawed since it does not specify the causal relations between the outcomes of theory assessment and the actual acceptance/unacceptance of a theory; it merely tells us that a theory was assessed by the method employed at the time. We propose a new formulation of the second law: “If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.” This new formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. Also, this new formulation is not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted. Finally, we outline what inferences an observational scientonomist can make regarding theory assessment outcomes from the record of accepted theories.Suggested Modifications[Sciento-2017-0004]:Accept the following reformulation of the second law:The second law: if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.Accept the following definitions of theory assessment outcomes:Outcome: satisfied ≡ the theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.Outcome: not satisfied ≡ the theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.Outcome: inconclusive ≡ it is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.Accept the following ontology of theory assessment outcomes:The three possible outcomes of theory assessment are “satisfied”, “not satisfied”, and “inconclusive”.Accept the following redefinition of employed method:Employed method ≡ a method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.Reject:The previous formulation of the second law.The previous definitions of theory assessment outcomes.The previous ontology of theory assessment outcomes.The previous definition of employed method. [Sciento-2017-0005]:Contingent upon the acceptance of the preceding modification [Sciento-2017-0004], accept that the new second law is not a tautology. [Sciento-2017-0006]:Contingent upon the acceptance of modification [Sciento-2017-0004], accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender (see text).Also accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories (see text).

Leren Praten en Door Praten Leren in Een Vreemde Taal

1996 ◽  
Vol 54 ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Kees de Bot
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Production Process ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Language Learner ◽  
Input And Output ◽  
Specific Input ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of

In this article a description is given of the language production process based on Levelťs 'Speaking'-model. Using this type of model will help us to understand better the subprocesses in language production and the kind of knowledge and procedures needed to produce language. A full definition of what knowledge is needed will also help us to model the different stages a language learner goes through. In the second part of this article recent developments with respect to the role of output in SLA are discussed from the perspective of the model presented. It is concluded that in language acquisition both input and output are needed and that in fact output may have as an important function the generation of very specific input that will support the acquisitional process.

scholarly journals A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Patrick Thomas Fraser ◽  
Ameer Sarwar
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Theory ◽  
Theory Change ◽  
Epistemic Stance ◽  
Current Formulation ◽  
Previous Definition ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Theory Acceptance ◽  
Demarcation Criteria

The current formulation of the zeroth law (the law of compatibility) is marred with a number of theoretical problems, which necessitate its reformulation. In this paper, we propose that compatibility is an independent stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. We then provide a new definition of compatibility criteria to reflect this change. We show that the content of the zeroth law is deducible from our definition of compatibility. Instead of a static law of compatibility, we propose a new dynamic law of compatibility that explains how the stance of compatibility obtains. Unlike the zeroth law, this new law has empirical content, as it forbids certain conceivable scenarios. Having established these notions, we propose a classification space that exhaustively covers all the possible states a theory may occupy and all the transitions it may undergo during its lifecycle.   Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0015]: Accept the following definition of compatibility: Compatibility ≡ the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also accept the following corollary: Compatibility Corollary: at any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other. Accept that all theorems that take the current zeroth law as their premise are recoverable when the compatibility corollary is used as a premise instead.  Reject the zeroth law.   [Sciento-2018-0016]: Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not sui generis.   [Sciento-2018-0017]: Accept the following definition of compatibility criteria: Compatibility Criteria ≡ criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible. Reject the previous definition of compatibility criteria.   [Sciento-2018-0018]: Accept the following law of compatibility as a scientonomic axiom: The Law of Compatibility: if a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.   [Sciento-2018-0019]: Accept the new definition of theory acceptance: Theory Acceptance ≡ an accepted theory is a scientific theory that is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object. Reject the previous definition of theory acceptance.   [Sciento-2018-0020]: Accept the following theorem: Demarcation-Acceptance Synchronism theorem: every theory that becomes accepted satisfies the demarcation criteria employed at the time of acceptance.

How do histone modifications contribute to transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in C. elegans?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 1019-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Woodhouse ◽  
Alyson Ashe
Keyword(s):  
Histone Modifications ◽  
Molecular Mechanisms ◽  
Epigenetic Inheritance ◽  
Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans ◽  
Histone Methyltransferases ◽  
Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance ◽  
C Elegans ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Gene Regulatory

Gene regulatory information can be inherited between generations in a phenomenon termed transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (TEI). While examples of TEI in many animals accumulate, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans has proven particularly useful in investigating the underlying molecular mechanisms of this phenomenon. In C. elegans and other animals, the modification of histone proteins has emerged as a potential carrier and effector of transgenerational epigenetic information. In this review, we explore the contribution of histone modifications to TEI in C. elegans. We describe the role of repressive histone marks, histone methyltransferases, and associated chromatin factors in heritable gene silencing, and discuss recent developments and unanswered questions in how these factors integrate with other known TEI mechanisms. We also review the transgenerational effects of the manipulation of histone modifications on germline health and longevity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document