Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology
The question of how we come to accept new theories is a central area of inquiry in scientonomic discourse. However, there has yet to be a formal discussion of the subjective reasons an agent may have for accepting theories. This paper explores these epistemic reasons and constructs a historically se...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Scientonomy Community
2019-12-01
|
| Series: | Scientonomy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557 |
| _version_ | 1818366560009453568 |
|---|---|
| author | Kye Palider |
| author_facet | Kye Palider |
| author_sort | Kye Palider |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The question of how we come to accept new theories is a central area of inquiry in scientonomic discourse. However, there has yet to be a formal discussion of the subjective reasons an agent may have for accepting theories. This paper explores these epistemic reasons and constructs a historically sensitive definition of reason. This formulation takes an abstractionist stance towards the ontology of reasons and makes use of a composite basing relation. The descriptive and normative components of reasons are fully formulated in scientonomic terms through the application of the newly introduced notion of implication, and its separation from the notion of inference. In addition, the paper provides scientonomic definitions for sufficient reason, support, and normative inference. The fruitfulness of this formulation of reasons is illustrated by a few examples.
Suggested Modifications
[Sciento-2019-0009]: Accept the following definition of implication:
• Implication ≡ a logical transition from one theory to another.
[Sciento-2019-0010]: Accept the following definitions of sufficient reason, reason, support, and normative inference:
• Sufficient Reason ≡ an agent takes theory A to be a sufficient reason for (accepting) theory B iff the following four conditions are met:
(1) The agent accepts A.
(2) The agent accepts that A→B.
(3) The agent employs ε.
(4) The agent accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B).
• Support ≡ an agent takes theory A to be supporting theory B iff the agent accepts A and accepts that A→B.
• Reason ≡ an agent takes theory A to be a reason for theory B iff the agent accepts that A→B, employs ε, and accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B).
• Normative Inference ≡ An agent takes theory A to normatively infer theory B iff the agent accepts A, accepts that A→B, and accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B).
[Sciento-2019-0011]: Provided that modification [Sciento-2019-0010] is accepted, accept the sufficient reason theorem and its deduction from the definition of sufficient reason and the second law:
• Sufficient Reason theorem: a theory becomes accepted by an agent, when an agent has a sufficient reason for accepting it.
Accept the following question as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry:
• Theory Acceptance without Sufficient Reason: how do theories become accepted without a sufficient reason, i.e. in the cases of circularity or theories without a reason? |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T22:38:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c89fb590b7b04ad28c41a9bb96b6f509 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2560-9076 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T22:38:06Z |
| publishDate | 2019-12-01 |
| publisher | Scientonomy Community |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientonomy |
| spelling | doaj.art-c89fb590b7b04ad28c41a9bb96b6f5092022-12-21T23:28:55ZengScientonomy CommunityScientonomy2560-90762019-12-01310.33137/js.v3i0.33557Reasons in the Scientonomic OntologyKye Palider0IHPST, University of TorontoThe question of how we come to accept new theories is a central area of inquiry in scientonomic discourse. However, there has yet to be a formal discussion of the subjective reasons an agent may have for accepting theories. This paper explores these epistemic reasons and constructs a historically sensitive definition of reason. This formulation takes an abstractionist stance towards the ontology of reasons and makes use of a composite basing relation. The descriptive and normative components of reasons are fully formulated in scientonomic terms through the application of the newly introduced notion of implication, and its separation from the notion of inference. In addition, the paper provides scientonomic definitions for sufficient reason, support, and normative inference. The fruitfulness of this formulation of reasons is illustrated by a few examples. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2019-0009]: Accept the following definition of implication: • Implication ≡ a logical transition from one theory to another. [Sciento-2019-0010]: Accept the following definitions of sufficient reason, reason, support, and normative inference: • Sufficient Reason ≡ an agent takes theory A to be a sufficient reason for (accepting) theory B iff the following four conditions are met: (1) The agent accepts A. (2) The agent accepts that A→B. (3) The agent employs ε. (4) The agent accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B). • Support ≡ an agent takes theory A to be supporting theory B iff the agent accepts A and accepts that A→B. • Reason ≡ an agent takes theory A to be a reason for theory B iff the agent accepts that A→B, employs ε, and accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B). • Normative Inference ≡ An agent takes theory A to normatively infer theory B iff the agent accepts A, accepts that A→B, and accepts (ε, A, A→B) →ε (Should accept B). [Sciento-2019-0011]: Provided that modification [Sciento-2019-0010] is accepted, accept the sufficient reason theorem and its deduction from the definition of sufficient reason and the second law: • Sufficient Reason theorem: a theory becomes accepted by an agent, when an agent has a sufficient reason for accepting it. Accept the following question as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry: • Theory Acceptance without Sufficient Reason: how do theories become accepted without a sufficient reason, i.e. in the cases of circularity or theories without a reason?https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557ontology of reasonsinferenceimplicationsufficient reasonsupportreason |
| spellingShingle | Kye Palider Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology Scientonomy ontology of reasons inference implication sufficient reason support reason |
| title | Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology |
| title_full | Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology |
| title_fullStr | Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology |
| title_full_unstemmed | Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology |
| title_short | Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology |
| title_sort | reasons in the scientonomic ontology |
| topic | ontology of reasons inference implication sufficient reason support reason |
| url | https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kyepalider reasonsinthescientonomicontology |