Test

Hello world

Community:Scientonomy

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015).

	Theory
Scientonomy#_3618f82d698a0e0155fa49e99b7d0e6b	Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)

Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015). It is defined as: "A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change."

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy

the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at

• outlining the current state of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;
• tracing all suggested modifications to our communal knowledge;
• documenting the open questions concerning the process of scientific change.

There are currently 3,584 pages in this encyclopedia.

Featured Article Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements What types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards epistemic elements? In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question. At the moment, the question has no accepted answer in Scientonomy. Read More In the news 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0006 was accepted. Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia indicating his support for accepting this modification and noted its potential to underpin further work on discipline dynamics. In fact, a significant amount of observational scientonomy work has been carried out in the past few years (including the paper on the rejection of alchemy by Friesen and Patton (2023),1 as well as some more recent papers) that presupposes the acceptance of these definitions, despite the fact that the modification containing them formally remains open. There was very little discussion about the modification, beyond raising points for the community to look forward to in the future, like a brief discussion between Jamie Shaw and Paul Patton about the need for more research on the difference between disciplines and disciplinary communities. The modification was accepted unanimously with 18 votes. Read More 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0002 was accepted. Prior to the 2024 workshop, Carlin Henikoff left a comment on the encyclopedia affirming that the modification should be accepted, but also stating that it was unclear whether it should be accepted as an axiom, per se. During the 2024 workshop, it was clarified that in our taxonomy, if X follows from something else, it is a theorem, but if not, it is an axiom. At the time of the publication of Levesley and Barseghyan’s paper, Henikoff was engaged in conversations in the scientonomy community about whether the law of question acceptance could be deducible from other scientonomic theorems. This clarified the thrust of her comment; since the law hasn't been shown to follow from any other scientonomic theories, it can only be taken as an axiom. There were also concerns about the phrasing of the law. Specifically, Jamie Shaw highlighted that the acceptance of a question cannot be predicated upon the acceptance of all of its presuppositions, simply because a question can have an infinite number of presuppositions. However, the participants were reminded of the difference between epistemic presuppositions and logical presuppositions (proposed by Levesley and Barseghyan in the previously accepted modification Sciento-2021-0001). While a question can have an infinite number of logical presuppositions (i.e. these are “explosive”), the law explicitly talks about epistemic presuppositions, which are not explosive. The modification was accepted nearly unanimously by over two-thirds majority of votes. 17 out of 18 votes were for acceptance. Read More 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2022-0002 was accepted. Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia with his opinion that the modification should be accepted given that the formulation seemed relatively future-proof: it would not have to change even if more elements are included into our ontology. Paul Patton and Cameron Scott raised some concerns about the differences between norm employment and norm acceptance, and about the derivability of norms from agents’ mosaics, given cases in the history of science where agents accept a norm that is derivable from their mosaic but do not act accordingly (that is, they fail to employ the norm). However, it was noted that this is a separate issue from what the modification aims to do: the law of norm employment does not describe what happens to norms that are already present in the mosaic, but merely describes how norms come to be part of the mosaic. Yet, the discrepancy in the community’s accepted definitions of norm acceptance (as a subtype of theory acceptance) and norm employment was highlighted as a pertinent issue for later focus. After this clarification, there were no further issues raised, and the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 14 out of 16 votes were for acceptance. Read More

Recent Suggested Modifications (all) Sciento-2024-0003: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0002: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0001: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Recent Publications (check out the journal) Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen Abstract: This paper applies Patton and Al-Zayadi’s scientonomic framework for understanding disciplines to a case study of the development of the chemical discipline ("chymistry") from the 17th century through the early 18th century in Western Europe. Using evidence from the tradition of textbook publication that emerged in the seventeenth-century chymistry, we reconstruct the top-level of the question hierarchy of chymistry. Analyzing how these questions and their associated theories were received, we first show how, starting in the 1660s, alchemy transitioned from a synonym of chymistry to chymistry’s subdiscipline with a more limited scope. We identify that the rejection of alchemy's core questions occurred in the 1720s based on the reception of these questions in scientific publications and by academic institutions. Hence, we conclude that the subdiscipline of alchemy became rejected in the 1720s. In order to conduct our case-study, we closely follow Newman and Principe's research on early modern alchemy and chymistry in our reconstruction of the episode. However, using the scientonomic framework in analyzing this case study reveals the specific dynamics of this instance of sub-discipline rejection. Our deepened understanding of this hallmark historical episode of disciplinary rejection indicates the value of Patton and Al-Zayadi’s theoretical framework for observational scientonomic research. Read More Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework Joshua Allen Abstract: In a series of publications, Hasok Chang makes the case that activities carried out by epistemic agents form the basis of the scientific enterprise. This paper provides an action-based scientonomic perspective of scientific practice. I define epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element and highlight the difference between global and local actions. The availability of a local action to an epistemic agent amounts to the agent employing the norm that the local action is permissible/desirable. To unearth the mechanism by which local actions become available to epistemic agents, I derive the local action availability theorem, according to which, a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic, i.e., from that agent’s employed norms and accepted theories. This framework is then applied to the emergence of the local action of determining the composition of chemical substances by weighing as practiced by Lavoisier and his followers; it is shown that the respective norm became employed in accord with the local action availability theorem. Read More Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England G. G. Shan Abstract: The paper investigates the applicability of corpus linguistics to the construction of a database of intellectual history. Working with the Royal Society Corpus (RSC), it presents a series of corpus queries that can aid with computationally identifying potential instances of communal theory acceptance in England during the period of 1665-1800. These queries allowed to identify a set of noun-adjective pairs potentially synonymous with “accepted theory” and retrieve around 1,400 excerpts potentially indicative of instances of communal theory acceptance. The paper also discusses some strategies for identifying the epistemic agent, as well as the RSC’s place within the broader historical context. Finally, I argue that, in addition to exploring corpus linguistics strategies, methodologies for interpreting computationally retrieved data should also be developed. Read More

From today's featured list Some text