Claim
Discord
i agree it's not universal! my feeling is that Claim: a statement (claim or evidence) might be the more universal element: - empirical work also consists of statements about the world (this is less controversial) - design/technological innovation rests in part on claims about a) what is needed in the world, what is hard to do, constraints, and b) what is needed to succeed: examples here: https://deepscienceventures.com/content/the-outcomes-graph-2 (h/t <@559775193242009610>) - theories often consist of systems of core claims (e.g., in models like what <@824740026575355906> and <@734802666441408532> are working with, where we can think of the claims as subgraphs of the overall knowledge graph)
see, e.g., Evidence from this review of models of scientific knowledge https://publish.obsidian.md/joelchan-notes/discourse-graph/evidence/EVD+-+Four+positivist+epistemological+models+from+philosophy+of+science%2C+including+Popper%2C+emphasiz...+statements+as+a+core+component+of+scientific+knowledge+-+%40harsDesigningScientificKnowledge2001
and Evidence convergence/contrasts across users of the Roam Discourse Graph extension in terms of building blocks: common thread across all was Evidence
my examples are more the latter.
there are also strong roots in this idea of Infrastructure in CSCW, studying lots of attempts to get scientists to adopt new infrastructure and why they... didn't work.
one challenge is the Claim that "infrastructures often fail because of the inertia of the installed base" (existing software, workflows, norms, institutions, legal codes, etc.)
one decent entry point Source on this: Information Infrastructures and the Challenge of the Installed Base
claim claims and questions dominate in natural conversation; the imbalance of sources & evidence is quite stark. This aligns with my mental model of *conversational charity*, where we assume our interlocutors *could* ground their statements in evidence if pressed, but skip this step in the interest of time.