Test

Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)

Topic	Parent Topic	Community	Accepted From	Accepted From Era	Accepted From Year	Accepted From Month	Accepted From Day	Accepted From Approximate	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until Era	Accepted Until Year	Accepted Until Month	Accepted Until Day	Accepted Until Approximate	Rejection Indicators
Acceptance Criteria		Scientonomy	1 January 2016		2016	January	1	No	The definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016	CE	2016	April	1	No	This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
Accidental Group		Scientonomy	2 February 2018	CE	2018	February	2	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting Modifications	Scientonomic Workflow	Scientonomy	25 February 2023	CE	2023	February	25	No	The idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.	true
		Scientonomy	4 October 2018	CE	2018	October	4	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.	true
		Scientonomy	10 March 2017	CE	2017	March	10	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.	true
		Scientonomy	26 December 2019	CE	2019	December	26	No	The publication of Patton (2019) is and indication of the acceptance of the question.	true
		Scientonomy	27 January 2017	CE	2017	January	27	No	This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.	true
		Scientonomy	18 January 2018	CE	2018	January	18	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.	true
		Scientonomy	18 January 2018	CE	2018	January	18	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The question was raised by Barseghyan in his original formulation of scientonomy pp. 99-109, although he was unable to supply a normative answer.	true
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts	Assessment of Scientonomy	Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' p. 109-113 and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The community has accepted an answer to this question, Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant facts Barseghyan 2015, and this implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of the question itself.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The law became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).	true
		Scientonomy	7 September 2016	CE	2016	September	7	No	Associations of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	Associations of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.	true
		Scientonomy	28 December 2018	CE	2018	December	28	No	Associations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.	true
		Scientonomy	8 October 2018	CE	2018	October	8	No	Associations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Definition. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Demarcation Criteria.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Descriptive Theory. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	Associations of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline Acceptance. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016	CE	2016	April	1	No	Associations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
		Scientonomy	31 December 2023	CE	2023	December	31	No	Associations of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.	true
		Scientonomy	8 October 2018	CE	2018	October	8	No	Associations of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Agent. The publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	Yes	Associations of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Element. The term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	Associations of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Stance. The term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.	true
		Scientonomy	31 December 2023	CE	2023	December	31	No	Associations of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Global Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Hierarchical Authority Delegation. The publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.	true
		Scientonomy	28 December 2018	CE	2018	December	28	No	Associations of Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Implicit. The publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	26 December 2019	CE	2019	December	26	No	Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Individual Epistemic Agent. This is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.	true
		Scientonomy	31 December 2023	CE	2023	December	31	No	Associations of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Action Availability. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.	true
		Scientonomy	31 December 2023	CE	2023	December	31	No	Associations of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	Associations of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Logical Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	24 December 2019	CE	2019	December	24	No	Associations of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method Hierarchy. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016	CE	2016	April	1	No	Associations of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Merge.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Split.	true
		Scientonomy	1 September 2019	CE	2019	September	1	No	Associations of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Norm Employment. The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Normative Theory. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.	true
		Scientonomy	12 May 2018	CE	2018	May	12	No	Associations of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question Acceptance. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	12 May 2018	CE	2018	May	12	No	Associations of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Scientific Mosaic. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Acceptance. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the term itself became accepted.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Pursuit.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Use.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Associations of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.	true
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment	Mechanism of Method Employment	Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
Authority Delegation		Scientonomy	1 February 2017	CE	2017	February	1	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	false	CE	2023	February	6	No	The definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Authority Delegation		Scientonomy	6 February 2023	CE	2023	February	6	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.	true
		Scientonomy	7 September 2016	CE	2016	September	7	No	The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)	true
Bearers of Mosaic	Ontology of Scientific Change	Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	This claim was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2018. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC.	false	CE	2018	October	8	No	With the publication of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology that coined the term epistemic agent the question of the bearers of a mosaic was superseded by the question of subtypes of epistemic agent. As a result, the answer to the former was also rejected.
		Scientonomy	1 March 2016	CE	2016	March	1	Yes	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	false	CE	2018	October	8	No	Following the publication of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology that coined the term epistemic agent, the question was superseded by the of Subtypes of Epistemic Agent.
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	This is when the first answer to the question was accepted, the Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), indicating that the question is itself legitimate.	true
Community		Scientonomy	2 February 2018	CE	2018	February	2	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Associations of Community		Scientonomy	1 February 2017	CE	2017	February	1	No	The definition of the term that assumed this association was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Existence of Community		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The existence of communities has been accepted since the inception of scientonomy.	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
Compatibility		Scientonomy	3 June 2020	CE	2020	June	3	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Compatibility of Mosaic Elements	Mechanism of Compatibility	Scientonomy	3 June 2020	CE	2020	June	3	No	The corollary became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Compatibility Criteria		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	false	CE	2020	October	11	No	The definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.
Compatibility Criteria		Scientonomy	11 October 2020	CE	2020	October	11	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No		true
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance Supertypes of Compatibility	Ontology of Scientific Change	Scientonomy	1 October 2021	CE	2021	October	1	No	The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.	true
		Scientonomy	28 December 2018	CE	2018	December	28	No	The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.	true
		Scientonomy	28 December 2018	CE	2018	December	28	No	The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016	CE	2016	April	1	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
Nature of Appraisal	Mechanism of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 March 2018	CE	2018	March	1	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.	true
Definition		Scientonomy	1 September 2019	CE	2019	September	1	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Existence of Definition		Scientonomy	1 September 2019	CE	2019	September	1	No	The claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology.	true
Subtypes of Theory Supertypes of Definition		Scientonomy	1 September 2019	CE	2019	September	1	No	The claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology.	true
		Scientonomy	8 October 2018	CE	2018	October	8	No	The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016		2016	April	1	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
		Scientonomy	25 January 2018	CE	2018	January	25	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.	true
		Scientonomy	10 February 2017	CE	2017	February	10	No	It was acknowledged as an open question in Scientonomy Seminar 2017.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
Demarcation Criteria		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No		true
		Scientonomy	3 March 2017	CE	2017	March	3	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.	true
Descriptive Theory		Scientonomy	15 February 2017	CE	2017	February	15	No	The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.	true
Existence of Descriptive Theory		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The existence of descriptive theories became accepted together with the acceptance of the rest of the original TSC.	true
Subtypes of Theory Supertypes of Descriptive Theory		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No		true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.	true
		Scientonomy	1 August 2021	CE	2021	August	1	No	This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.	true
		Scientonomy	1 April 2016	CE	2016	April	1	No	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	Disjointness of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Accidental Group. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	7 September 2016	CE	2016	September	7	No	Disjointness of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)	true
		Scientonomy	19 May 2017	CE	2017	May	19	No	Disjointness of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	true
		Scientonomy	1 January 2016	CE	2016	January	1	No	Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.	true
... further results

Like demarcation and acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria can be part of an epistemic agent's employed method. An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements (e.g. methods, theories, questions) are mutually compatible or incompatible, i.e. whether they can be simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it (e.g. scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). Fraser and Sarwar point out that Barseghyan's original definition of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".p. 72 To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".p. 72

Different communities can have different compatibility criteria. While some communities may opt to employ the logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of compatibility, other communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. According to Barseghyan, the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a good indication that the actual criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".p. 11 For example, this is apparent in the case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective domains (i.e. they are considered compatible), but are known to be in conflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.

Hello world

This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."

This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."

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 3,552 pages in this encyclopedia.

Featured Article Mechanism of Mosaic Split What happens to a mosaic when two or more similar theories are considered equally acceptable by a scientific community? Under what conditions does a mosaic split occur? What happens to a mosaic when it is transformed into two or more mosaics? 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. Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015) are currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answers to the question. At the moment, the question has no accepted answer in Scientonomy. Read More In the news 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0007 was accepted. Prior to the 2023 workshop, Ameer Sarwar argued against the modification. First, he noted that voting is not an appropriate mechanism in science where the goal is to unearth truth.c1 Second, it is unclear how we can ensure informed voting given that some members of the community could be inactive for several years. He thus suggested that we should keep this modification open and wait until after the resolution of modifications 2019-0002 and 2019-0003 that suggest alternative ways to increase participation. During the workshop, the modification was generally well received. Before voting, there was some concern about our voting process – who can vote and when can they vote? – voiced by Josh Allen and Paul Patton. Additionally, Deivide Garcia and Amirali Atrli raised concerns about who are “allowed” to function as part of the scientonomy community. Patton also suggested introducing quorum in addition to the 2/3rds stipulation to avoid potential modifications to the scientonomic body of knowledge introduced by a small number of participants. Gregory Rupik along with Jamie Shaw indicated that while quorum makes perfect sense for larger decision-making bodies, our capacity to vote should not hinge on who is absent, but rather on who is present. It was also determined that even though there is always a risk of a small group of people making big changes, or with people being unsatisfied with a modification they were not allowed to vote on, the iterative nature of our process ensures that there are easy solutions here; in addition, as Spenser summarized, most people in academic environments can be trusted to self-police. Rupik also highlighted the need to formalize the acceptance mechanism in the encyclopedia explicitly: i.e. without 3 comments with unanimity, the modification will be discussed at a workshop, and it is possible that it will remain open after the workshop, in which case we will wait until the next workshop to further discuss and modify it. Notably, since this proposal represents an attempt to formalize a voting system and closure mechanism, and itself was not subject to a specific voting system, it was decided by those present that we would accept this modification with a minimum of 2/3rds assent. The modification was accepted with overwhelming support. Read More 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0006 was accepted. The decision was made during the 2023 workshop. Hakob Barseghyan emphasized that this modification does not grant permission to alter the body of scientonomic knowledge but simply to ensure that the pages of the encyclopedia reflect the actual state of scientonomic knowledge and that the scientonomic knowledge is stored in the most appropriate manner. Among other things, this is to handle the so-called ripple effect. Barseghyan mentioned that, while working on the encyclopedia with Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen, they had discovered several instances of ripple effect that resulted from our human lack of omniscience (e.g. a theory was supposed to be listed under Theories to Accept of a modification but wasn’t; a theory was actually accepted by the community but there was no record of it in the encyclopedia, etc.). Hence, according to Barseghyan, it would make sense to grant the editors the necessary right to adjust the respective pages to handle its consequences. Deivide Garcia wondered how such very small modifications can be tracked. Barseghyan responded that the changes in question are not meant to concern the body of scientonomic knowledge (thus, these are not modifications in the standard scientonomic sense), but are only to ensure that the encyclopedia reflects the current state of scientonomic knowledge and organizes that knowledge efficiently. Kye Palider highlighted the issue of transparency: how will the community be notified about such changes? Barseghyan suggested that an annual housekeeping paper is to be published in the Scientonomy journal as a collective report on changes to the encyclopedia. The modification was accepted. Read More 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0005 was not accepted. At the 2023 workshop, this modification was met with concerns from the community. Firstly, the question of the equitability of star ratings was highlighted by Rebecca Muscant and Izzy Friesen. Amirali Atrli also wondered whether the problem of incentives becomes further stretched out by the five-star scale. Kye Palider noted that the up-or-down arrow that we already have on our Wiki seems simpler and more democratic than star-ranking. Alessandra Castino also mentioned that on online forums, the basis of their rating systems can discourage new commenters, and that we might see this here too. Some rating systems are also better than others – it was suggested by Joshua Allen, for example, that StackExchange’s system could provide a good model, as it incentivizes participation. Friesen highlighted that larger forums where rating systems for commentary are popular include anonymity by default, which makes this kind of recognition important, but this is not so much of an issue in the scientonomy community. Palider suggested simply listing a user’s number of comments but, as Castino emphasized, such ratings might not reflect the quality of the comments. Jamie Shaw noted that this need not necessarily be an issue since all participation grades are almost inevitably subjective and don’t necessarily reflect the quality. Deivide Garcia suggested that more thoughts needs to be put into this before any of the suggestions could be implemented. Barseghyan agreed and noted that the mediawiki platform has limitations on what can be done here, so it is unclear which of the new suggestions could be possibly implemented. Ultimately, though, the modification was rejected. 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