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.

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).

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 Procedure and conditions of life executing punishment

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Konopelskyi ◽  
Valentyna Merkulova ◽  
Oksana Hrytenko ◽  
Kateryna Pogrebna ◽  
Harehyn Muradyan
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
System Implementation ◽  
Special Significance ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Disciplinary System

The article is devoted to the consideration of essence and tendencies of reforming the criminal-executive legislation of Ukraine concerning the procedure and execution and serving life imprisonment conditions. Certain debatable provisions, both theoretical and legal, concerning procedure and conditions of life service executing punishment are considered. It is proved that clarity, completeness and system-legal balance will be facilitated by the formal reproduction in the law of classification of all criminal-executive norms of Chapter 22 of the Criminal Executive Code (hereinafter–CEC) (based on a certain criterion) into norms of general and special significance, which in turn should be divided into the following subtypes. General penitentiary provisions, which determine the initial legal status of persons sentenced to life imprisonment, provide a list and features of the rights, legitimate interests, responsibilities of convicts, ways (mechanism) to comply with safe conditions of detention, etc. General penitentiary provisions, which define the basic principles for implementation of changes in detention conditions during execution and serving a sentence (essence, tasks, forms, general requirements for material grounds for application, procedural issues of progressive system implementation, definition of disciplinary system).

Actual and legal limitations of the right to public information against the background of native legislation

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 193-208
Author(s):  
Aleksander Kwaśniak
Keyword(s):  
Public Information ◽  
Sensu Stricto ◽  
Specific Situation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

In this article the author presents the range of limitations of the right to public information, which are included in the law on access to public information. At the beginning the author formulates a definition of limitation. At the end of this article, the author try to make a classification of limitations on actual limitations and legal limitations, depending on the reason of limitation in a specific situation. The author also evokes views of doctrine too, where we find the split into limitations sensu stricto and sensu largo. The last think is the analysis of legal means, which are entitled to applicants for a given limitation.

scholarly journals A Synergetic Theory of Information

Information ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viktor Vyatkin
Keyword(s):  
Average Length ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Discrete Systems ◽  
Information Law ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Synergetic Theory ◽  
First Time

A new approach is presented to defining the amount of information, in which information is understood as the data about a finite set as a whole, whereas the average length of an integrative code of elements serves as a measure of information. In the framework of this approach, the formula for the syntropy of a reflection was obtained for the first time, that is, the information which two intersecting finite sets reflect (reproduce) about each other. Features of a reflection of discrete systems through a set of their parts are considered and it is shown that reproducible information about the system (the additive syntropy of reflection) and non-reproducible information (the entropy of reflection) are, respectively, measures of the structural order and the chaos. At that, the general classification of discrete systems is given by the ratio of the order and the chaos. Three information laws have been established: The law of conservation of the sum of chaos and order; the information law of reflection; and the law of conservation and transformation of information. An assessment of the structural organization and the level of development of discrete systems is presented. It is shown that various measures of information are structural characteristics of integrative codes of elements of discrete systems. A conclusion is made that, from the information-genetic positions, the synergetic approach to the definition of the quantity of information is primary in relation to the approaches of Hartley and Shannon.

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 CAUSING INJURY DURING OPERATION AND SEARCH MEASURES: SEPARATELY SPECIFIC ISSUES

2019 ◽  
pp. 96-103
Author(s):  
О.О. Hrynkiv
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Practical Interest ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Search Activity ◽  
The Law ◽  
Criminal Protection ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Investigative Activity

The article deals with the issue of identifying and classifying operative-search measures and causing damage during their conduct. The purpose of the article is to find methodological approaches to understanding the operational and investigative measures during which damage is caused and to elaborate the classification criteria. Attention is drawn to the fact that legitimate damage to the objects of criminal protection, including persons against whom the operative-search measure is conducted, and third parties (third parties), may be caused during the operative-search activities. The restrictions on human rights and freedoms that occur in the course of investigative activities are quite understandable for the persons against whom such measures are taken since their rights are restricted by law, as for third parties, they are subjected to human rights violations. There is no legal definition of operational-search measures, as well as a legislative classification of such measures, in Ukraine. There is no such definition either in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine or in the Law of Ukraine «On Operational Investigation Activities». The legal ambiguity of the notion of operative-investigative measures and the lack of their list in the law creates certain difficulties, first of all, in the law-enforcement process. The following definition of operative-search measures is proposed: it’s should be understood by operative-search measures, the system of organizational and practical actions, which are carried out mainly by silence, by the subjects of operative-investigative activity using operative and operative technical means, as well as methods, techniques, and ways, for solving the tasks of investigative activity, in order to identify the circumstances that are relevant to the criminal proceedings and are subject to proof. The positions of scientists on the classification of operational-search activities in the science of operational-search activity are analyzed. It is noted that in the writings of scientists the systematization of operative-search measures in terms of criminal law was practically not carried out. However, some differentiation criteria have some scientific and practical interest. It is noted that in most cases, damage to the objects of criminal protection may be caused during the conduct of operative-search measures. In order to classify operative-search measures, it is proposed to select the limited number of objects of criminal protection that may be harmed during the conduct of operative-search measures. Depending on this feature, all actions provided for in Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine «On Operational and Investigative Activities», is proposed to divide into two groups – these are operational and investigative measures, which may be detrimental to 1) a limited number of criminal protection objects; 2) an unlimited number of objects that are protected by the law on criminal liability. Keywords: operative-search activity, operative-search measure, classification of operative-search measures, damage caused.

scholarly journals Virtual assets market infrastructure

2021 ◽  
pp. 183-189
Author(s):  
O.I. Kulyk
Keyword(s):  
Service Providers ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Asset Market ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Market Infrastructure

Analyses the virtual assets market infrastructure. It was found that the uncertainty about the definition of the virtual assets market infrastructure makes it impossible to identify the infrastructure elements. Given that, it is necessary to propose the definition of virtual assets market infrastructure, identify the elements of the mentioned infrastructure, and make proposals for the development of the legal regulation regarding the virtual assets market. Thus, it was given the definition of the virtual assets market infrastructure as a set of elements that provide, regulate and create conditions for the normal, efficient and smooth functioning of this market. The article considers scientific approaches to the classification of the market infrastructure elements into general elements and special elements. General elements could be considered as infrastructure elements in all kinds of markets. But special elements are functioning only on the virtual assets market. For this study, it was proposed to identify only the special elements of the virtual assets market infrastructure. According to the research, special elements include: 1) service providers related to the circulation of virtual assets; 2) issuers (miners); 3) self-regulatory organizations. At the same time, it was grounded that the market users could not be considered as an element of the virtual assets market infrastructure. It was substantiated that the virtual assets market is at its early stage of formation, and therefore new elements of the market infrastructure may emerge. Besides, it was grounded that the definition of virtual asset market infrastructure should be enshrined in the law governing the relations on the virtual assets market.

1. Introduction to the law of evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Glover
Keyword(s):  
European Convention ◽  
Law System ◽  
Rules Of Evidence ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Of Evidence ◽  
The Impact

This chapter provides an overview of the law of evidence. It discusses the definition of evidence and how the law of evidence differs from the science or philosophy of evidence; the characteristics of the judicial trial that demand a particular legal approach to the presentation and use of evidence including, on occasion, its exclusion; the development of the rules of evidence in the common law system and the factors that influenced this; the classification of the rules of evidence; and the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the provisions relating to the right to a fair trial.

scholarly journals Scientificity and The Law of Theory Demarcation

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 55-66
Author(s):  
Ameer Sarwar ◽  
Patrick Thomas Fraser
Keyword(s):  
Conference Proceedings ◽  
Scientific Change ◽  
Epistemic Stance ◽  
The Law ◽  
Demarcation Criteria ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Historical Indicators

The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend that changes in this stance are to be traced and explained by scientonomy. Thus, we formulate a new law of theory demarcation to account for changes in scientificity within the scientonomic framework.   Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0013]: Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry: Scientificity: How should scientificity be defined? Scientificity of Methods: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards methods? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific methods? Scientificity of Questions: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards questions? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific questions?   [Sciento-2018-0014]: Accept the following law as a new scientonomic axiom: The Law of Theory Demarcation: if a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain. Accept that the law of theory demarcation is not a tautology. Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry: Indicators of Theory Scientificity: What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? Can traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journals be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place? Indicators of Conclusiveness for Scientificity Assessment: What are the historical indicators that an assessment by the demarcation criteria was conclusive or inconclusive? Does the lack of agreement or evidence count in favor of inconclusive assessment outcome?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document