Reformulating the Second Law
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 formulat...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Paul Patton [verfasserIn] Nicholas Overgaard [verfasserIn] Hakob Barseghyan [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Scientonomy - Scientonomy Community, 2019, 1(2017) |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:1 ; year:2017 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ032872194 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ032872194 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230501192846.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Paul Patton |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Reformulating the Second Law |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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). | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a theoretical scientonomy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a the second law | |
| 650 | 4 | |a employed method | |
| 650 | 4 | |a theory assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a assessment outcomes | |
| 650 | 4 | |a theory acceptance | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Philosophy. Psychology. Religion | |
| 653 | 0 | |a B | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Nicholas Overgaard |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Hakob Barseghyan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Scientonomy |d Scientonomy Community, 2019 |g 1(2017) |w (DE-627)1760623709 |x 25609076 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:1 |g year:2017 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 1 |j 2017 | ||
| author_variant |
p p pp n o no h b hb |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:25609076:2017----::eomltntee |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 doi (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Paul Patton verfasserin aut Reformulating the Second Law 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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). theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B Nicholas Overgaard verfasserin aut Hakob Barseghyan verfasserin aut In Scientonomy Scientonomy Community, 2019 1(2017) (DE-627)1760623709 25609076 nnns volume:1 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 kostenfrei https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 1 2017 |
| spelling |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 doi (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Paul Patton verfasserin aut Reformulating the Second Law 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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). theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B Nicholas Overgaard verfasserin aut Hakob Barseghyan verfasserin aut In Scientonomy Scientonomy Community, 2019 1(2017) (DE-627)1760623709 25609076 nnns volume:1 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 kostenfrei https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 1 2017 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 doi (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Paul Patton verfasserin aut Reformulating the Second Law 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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). theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B Nicholas Overgaard verfasserin aut Hakob Barseghyan verfasserin aut In Scientonomy Scientonomy Community, 2019 1(2017) (DE-627)1760623709 25609076 nnns volume:1 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 kostenfrei https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 1 2017 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 doi (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Paul Patton verfasserin aut Reformulating the Second Law 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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). theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B Nicholas Overgaard verfasserin aut Hakob Barseghyan verfasserin aut In Scientonomy Scientonomy Community, 2019 1(2017) (DE-627)1760623709 25609076 nnns volume:1 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 kostenfrei https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 1 2017 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 doi (DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Paul Patton verfasserin aut Reformulating the Second Law 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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). theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B Nicholas Overgaard verfasserin aut Hakob Barseghyan verfasserin aut In Scientonomy Scientonomy Community, 2019 1(2017) (DE-627)1760623709 25609076 nnns volume:1 year:2017 https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 kostenfrei https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA AR 1 2017 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Scientonomy 1(2017) volume:1 year:2017 |
| sourceStr |
In Scientonomy 1(2017) volume:1 year:2017 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Scientonomy |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Paul Patton @@aut@@ Nicholas Overgaard @@aut@@ Hakob Barseghyan @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760623709 |
| id |
DOAJ032872194 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ032872194</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501192846.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.33137/js.v1i0.27158</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ032872194</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Patton</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reformulating the Second Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical scientonomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">the second law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">employed method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theory assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">assessment outcomes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theory acceptance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholas Overgaard</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hakob Barseghyan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientonomy</subfield><subfield code="d">Scientonomy Community, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2017)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760623709</subfield><subfield code="x">25609076</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Paul Patton |
| spellingShingle |
Paul Patton misc theoretical scientonomy misc the second law misc employed method misc theory assessment misc assessment outcomes misc theory acceptance misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B Reformulating the Second Law |
| authorStr |
Paul Patton |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760623709 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
25609076 |
| topic_title |
Reformulating the Second Law theoretical scientonomy the second law employed method theory assessment assessment outcomes theory acceptance |
| topic |
misc theoretical scientonomy misc the second law misc employed method misc theory assessment misc assessment outcomes misc theory acceptance misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc theoretical scientonomy misc the second law misc employed method misc theory assessment misc assessment outcomes misc theory acceptance misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| topic_browse |
misc theoretical scientonomy misc the second law misc employed method misc theory assessment misc assessment outcomes misc theory acceptance misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Scientonomy |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760623709 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Scientonomy |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760623709 |
| title |
Reformulating the Second Law |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ032872194 (DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 |
| title_full |
Reformulating the Second Law |
| author_sort |
Paul Patton |
| journal |
Scientonomy |
| journalStr |
Scientonomy |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
Paul Patton Nicholas Overgaard Hakob Barseghyan |
| container_volume |
1 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Paul Patton |
| doi_str_mv |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
reformulating the second law |
| title_auth |
Reformulating the Second Law |
| abstract |
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). |
| abstractGer |
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). |
| abstract_unstemmed |
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). |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA |
| title_short |
Reformulating the Second Law |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3 https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158 https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Nicholas Overgaard Hakob Barseghyan |
| author2Str |
Nicholas Overgaard Hakob Barseghyan |
| ppnlink |
1760623709 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.33137/js.v1i0.27158 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T14:34:04.114Z |
| _version_ |
1803568801769324544 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ032872194</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501192846.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.33137/js.v1i0.27158</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ032872194</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paul Patton</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Reformulating the Second Law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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).</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theoretical scientonomy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">the second law</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">employed method</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theory assessment</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">assessment outcomes</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">theory acceptance</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholas Overgaard</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Hakob Barseghyan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientonomy</subfield><subfield code="d">Scientonomy Community, 2019</subfield><subfield code="g">1(2017)</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760623709</subfield><subfield code="x">25609076</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:1</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v1i0.27158</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/6df79a8d62fb4350ad473c56266e80b3</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2560-9076</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">1</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.3987017 |