Stasis Theory and Paleontology Discourse.¶
Northcut, K. M. (2007). Stasis Theory and Paleontology Discourse. The Writing Instructor.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Stasis
- Public policy. Many disagreements appear to be about evidence but are at the quality stasis (is this intervention legitimate?) or the jurisdictional stasis (whose authority is this?); the sense that a debate "won't resolve no matter how much data we collect" is a stasis-mismatch signature. Scientific controversy. A replication dispute can be conjectural (did the effect occur?), definitional (does this count as the effect?), or quality (was the procedure appropriate?), and identifying which stasis it is at predicts what evidence would actually move it.
This sourceApplies the stasis typology (conjectural vs. definitional vs. quality questions) to a scientific controversy — the Protoavis texensis fossil dispute — supporting the claim that identifying which stasis a replication/empirical dispute occupies predicts which evidence bears on it.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Applies conjectural, definitional and quality stasis categories to a scientific fossil dispute, but not to replication disputes, and does not claim stasis identification predicts which evidence moves a dispute.
“subdivided based on the ancient scheme: conjectural, definitional, qualitative, and translative”
- Public policy. Many disagreements appear to be about evidence but are at the quality stasis (is this intervention legitimate?) or the jurisdictional stasis (whose authority is this?); the sense that a debate "won't resolve no matter how much data we collect" is a stasis-mismatch signature. Scientific controversy. A replication dispute can be conjectural (did the effect occur?), definitional (does this count as the effect?), or quality (was the procedure appropriate?), and identifying which stasis it is at predicts what evidence would actually move it.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:431eef87fc0d · see in the full table