Test

• A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change.
• The subtypes of epistemic agent are epistemic community and individual epistemic agent.
• The subtypes of epistemic element are explicit, implicit, question and theory.
• The subtypes of epistemic stance are compatibility, norm employment, question acceptance, theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use.
• An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
• An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
• An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• 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.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
• A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
• A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
• A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.
• Explicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of explicit.
• A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.
• Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.
• There is such a thing as an epistemic community.
• Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.
• Theory is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory.
• Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.
• A theory is said to be a logical presupposition of a question, iff the theory is logically entailed by any direct answer to the question.
• Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.
• Norm Employment is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment.
• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.
• The encyclopedia editors should be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. If the additional required changes are implicit in the suggested modification, the editors should create and alter encyclopedia pages to ensure that the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge is properly documented; if it is conceivable to accept the modification without accepting the ripple effect change in question, the editors should register these changes as new suggested modifications so that the community can discuss and evaluate them in an orderly fashion.
• Indicators of theory acceptance are textual sources that represent the position of a scientific community regarding a theory at some time. Useful indicators are contextual to time and culture. They might include such things as encyclopedias, textbooks, university curricula, and minutes of association meetings.
• A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
• In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
• There is such a thing as question acceptance.
• Two or more people who share any characteristic.
• The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.
• Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A.
• A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.
• Definition is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of definition.
• When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
• Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.
• A group that has a collective intentionality.
• Implicit is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of implicit.
• The stance of question acceptance can be taken towards a question.
• Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible.
• A community can delegate authority to another community.
• An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.
• It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.
• There is such a thing as a question.
• Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.
• There is such a thing as a logical presupposition.
• Scientonomy does not postulate the existence of a universal and unchanging method of science; thus the fact that methods of science are changeable is not detrimental to the prospects of scientonomy.
• The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.
• A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something.
• There is such a thing as a descriptive theory.
• A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.
• A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.
• Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.
• There is such a thing as an epistemic agent.
• The employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.
• Theory Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance.
• Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.
• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.
• Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.
• An epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method.
• Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility.
• The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence.
• Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agent.
• A statement of the meaning of a term.
• Theory Use is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use.
• A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.
• The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.
• A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
• There is such a thing as a normative theory.
• The handling of instances of scientific error is consistent with the theory rejection theorem; it involves a replacement of an erroneously accepted theory either with a first- or second-order proposition.
• Theory Pursuit is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit.
• A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry.
• Epistemic Community is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community.
• The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
• Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.
• A set of criteria for theory evaluation.
• Question is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of question.
• Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.
• A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.
• There is such a thing as theory acceptance.
• The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.
• There is such a thing as a definition.
• A theory is said to be an epistemic presupposition of a question for some agent, iff the agent accepts that accepting any direct answer to the question will necessitate accepting the theory.
• At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.
• Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.
• A group that does not have a collective intentionality.
• Descriptive Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of descriptive theory.
• If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change.
• A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.
• A set of propositions that attempts to describe something.
• Normative Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of normative theory.
• Not explicit.
• The discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections.
• Science can be said to be socially constructed in several different senses (e.g. the contingency, nominalist, and reducibility theses). None of these preclude the possibility of scientonomy.
• Question Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of question acceptance.
• Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.
• Method is a subtype of Normative Theory, i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method.
• Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent.
• The subtypes of theory are definition, descriptive theory and normative theory.
• At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
• A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.
• Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so.
• There is such a thing as a theory.
• Harder's zeroth law is tautological.
• The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• There is such a thing as a community.
• The stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• There is such a thing as an epistemic presupposition.
• The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.
• A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.
• The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• There is such a thing as an individual epistemic agent.
• Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.
• A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent.
• A topic of inquiry.
• There is such a thing as an epistemic stance.
• A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.
• The commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations in the comments. By default, the new formulation should bear the original author’s name, unless the author decides to give credit to those who significantly contributed to the new reformulation.
• Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
• Individual Epistemic Agent is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of individual epistemic agent.
• Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.
• There is such a thing as an epistemic element.
• A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.
• The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from all accepted theories, but only from some.
• A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.
• The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.
• A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
• If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.
• A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.
• A set of propositions.
• Method is a subtype of Normative Theory, i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method.
• An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
• An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
• An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
• An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
• An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• 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.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• 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.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
• If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
• A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
• A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
• A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
• A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
• A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
• The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:

1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.

• When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
• The stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory.
• Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.
• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
• Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.
• The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.
• The subtypes of epistemic agent are epistemic community and individual epistemic agent.
• The subtypes of epistemic element are explicit, implicit, question and theory.
• The subtypes of epistemic stance are compatibility, norm employment, question acceptance, theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use.
• An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
• An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.
• The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
• 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.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
• If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.
• A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.
• A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.
• Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.
• Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
• A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.
• Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.
• Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.
• In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
• It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.
• The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
• Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.
• Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible.
• If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.
• In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
• At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
• When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.
• In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
• Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.
• A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.

Current answers to Epistemic Stances Towards Theories are: The stances of theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use can be taken towards a theory.

Current answers to Epistemic Stances Towards Questions are: The stance of question acceptance can be taken towards a question.

Current answers to Mechanism of Mosaic Split are: When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question are The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016), The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015).

---

Add a New Ontological Topic

Add a New Answer

Heritable Questions of Descriptive Theory:

Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Descriptive Theories

The question has no accepted answer.

Necessary Descriptive Theories

The question has no accepted answer.

Subsumes items of Epistemic Stance: Compatibility, Epistemic Stance, Norm Employment, Question Acceptance, Theory Acceptance, Theory Pursuit, Theory Use

Questions of subsumes items of Epistemic Stance: Mechanism of Norm Employment, Mechanism of Question Acceptance, Mechanism of Theory Acceptance

Children Array: Question, Theory, Explicit and Implicit

---

Question, Theory, Explicit, Implicit

Question, Theory, Explicit and Implicit

Subsumes Items of Epistemic Element: Definition, Descriptive Theory, Epistemic Element, Explicit, Implicit, Method, Normative Theory, Question, Theory

Descendant Items of Epistemic Element: Definition, Descriptive Theory, Explicit, Implicit, Method, Normative Theory, Question, Theory

Ancestor Items of Method: Epistemic Element, Normative Theory, Theory

Subsumed Items of Method: Epistemic Element, Method, Normative Theory, Theory

Answers to the subquestions of Epistemic Element:

Epistemic Stances

This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: <subject>, <subjects>, and <a subject>, as well as capitalized <Subject>, <Subjects>, and <a Subject>.

This a test string that contains all the forms, including lowercase epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text. It does that several times for the sake of testing. Here they are again: epistemic element, theory, theory acceptance, theory use and some random text, epistemic elements, theories, instances of theory acceptance, instances of theory use and some random texts, and an epistemic element, a theory, theory acceptance, theory use and a some random text, as well as capitalized Epistemic Element, Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and Some random text, Epistemic Elements, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Instances of Theory Use and Some random texts, and an Epistemic Element, a Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use and a Some random text.

Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements

What epistemic elements can the stance of theory acceptance be taken towards?

Epistemic Stances

varTemp: Some text and some other text.

AnASLow: a method

AnASLow: a some word

AnASLow: an empty word

AnASCap: a Method

AnASCap: a Some word

AnASCap: an Empty word

SCap: Method

SLow: method

PCap: Epsitemic Stances, Methods, Theories, Instances of Theory Acceptance, Some other terms and Random texts

PLow: epistemic elements, methods, theories, instances of theory acceptance, some other terms and random texts

	Term	Disjoint Group	Theory	Subtypes
Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Epistemic Element	Main	Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)	Question Theory
Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Epistemic Element	explicitness	Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)	Explicit Implicit

The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy:

• The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory.
• On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.

The following subtypes of Epistemic Element are currently accepted in Scientonomy. The main subtypes of Epistemic Element are Question and Theory. On the basis of explicitness, the subtypes of Epistemic Element are Explicit and Implicit.

Hello World!

	Community	Term	Topic	Ontological Question Type	Disjoint Group	Disjoint Group Order	Theory	Subtypes	Supertypes	Association Type	Association Direction	Left Class	Right Class	Left Multiplicity	Right Multiplicity	Left Role	Right Role
Associations of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Associations of Acceptance Criteria	Associations
Associations of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Associations of Authority Delegation	Associations
Associations of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Associations of Community	Associations			Community Can Delegate Authority to Another Community (Loiselle-Overgaard-2016)			Composition	Right-to-Left	Community	Community	0..*	0..*	expert	delegating community
Associations of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Associations of Compatibility Criteria	Associations
Associations of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Associations of Compatibility	Associations
Associations of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Associations of Definition	Associations
Associations of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Associations of Demarcation Criteria	Associations
Associations of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Associations of Descriptive Theory	Associations
Associations of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Associations of Discipline	Associations
Associations of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Associations of Epistemic Agent	Associations
Associations of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Associations of Epistemic Community	Associations
Associations of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Associations of Epistemic Element	Associations
Associations of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Associations of Epistemic Presupposition	Associations
Associations of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Associations of Epistemic Stance	Associations
Associations of Implicit	Scientonomy	Implicit	Associations of Implicit	Associations
Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent	Associations
Associations of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Associations of Logical Presupposition	Associations
Associations of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Associations of Method Hierarchy	Associations
Associations of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Associations of Method	Associations
Associations of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Associations of Model	Associations
Associations of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Associations of Mosaic Split	Associations
Associations of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Associations of Norm Employment	Associations
Associations of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Associations of Normative Theory	Associations
Associations of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Associations of Question Acceptance	Associations
Associations of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Associations of Question	Associations			Theory Answers Question (Rawleigh-2018)			Composition	Left-to-Right	Theory	Question	0..*	1	answers
Associations of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Associations of Question	Associations			Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019)			Aggregation	Left-to-Right	Question	Theory	0..*	0..*	presupposes	is presupposed
Associations of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Associations of Scientific Mosaic	Associations
Associations of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Associations of Theory Acceptance	Associations
Associations of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Associations of Theory Pursuit	Associations
Associations of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Associations of Theory Use	Associations
Associations of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Associations of Theory	Associations			Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019)			Aggregation	Left-to-Right	Question	Theory	0..*	0..*	presupposes	is presupposed
Associations of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Associations of Theory	Associations			Theory Answers Question (Rawleigh-2018)			Composition	Left-to-Right	Theory	Question	0..*	1	answers
Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria	Disjointness
Disjointness of Accidental Group	Scientonomy	Accidental Group	Disjointness of Accidental Group	Disjointness
Disjointness of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Authority Delegation	Disjointness
Disjointness of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Disjointness of Community	Disjointness
Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria	Disjointness
Disjointness of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Disjointness of Compatibility	Disjointness
Disjointness of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Disjointness of Definition	Disjointness
Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria	Disjointness
Disjointness of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Disjointness of Descriptive Theory	Disjointness
Disjointness of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Disjointness of Discipline	Disjointness
Disjointness of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Disjointness of Epistemic Agent	Disjointness
Disjointness of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Disjointness of Epistemic Community	Disjointness
Disjointness of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Disjointness of Epistemic Element	Disjointness
Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition	Disjointness
Disjointness of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Disjointness of Epistemic Stance	Disjointness
Disjointness of Error	Scientonomy	Error	Disjointness of Error	Disjointness
Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit	Scientonomy	Explicable-Implicit	Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit	Disjointness
Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent	Disjointness
Disjointness of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Disjointness of Logical Presupposition	Disjointness
Disjointness of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Disjointness of Method Hierarchy	Disjointness
Disjointness of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Disjointness of Method	Disjointness
Disjointness of Methodology	Scientonomy	Methodology	Disjointness of Methodology	Disjointness
Disjointness of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Disjointness of Model	Disjointness
Disjointness of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Disjointness of Mosaic Split	Disjointness
Disjointness of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Disjointness of Norm Employment	Disjointness
Disjointness of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Disjointness of Normative Theory	Disjointness
Disjointness of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Disjointness of Question Acceptance	Disjointness
Disjointness of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Disjointness of Question	Disjointness
Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic	Disjointness
Disjointness of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Disjointness of Theory Acceptance	Disjointness
Disjointness of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Disjointness of Theory Pursuit	Disjointness
Disjointness of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Disjointness of Theory Use	Disjointness
Disjointness of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Disjointness of Theory	Disjointness
Existence of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Existence of Acceptance Criteria	Existence
Existence of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Existence of Authority Delegation	Existence
Existence of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Existence of Community	Existence			Community Exists
Existence of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Existence of Compatibility Criteria	Existence
Existence of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Existence of Compatibility	Existence
Existence of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Existence of Definition	Existence			Definition Exists
Existence of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Existence of Demarcation Criteria	Existence
Existence of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Existence of Descriptive Theory	Existence			Descriptive Theory Exists
Existence of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Existence of Discipline	Existence
Existence of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Existence of Epistemic Agent	Existence			Epistemic Agent Exists
Existence of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Existence of Epistemic Community	Existence			Epistemic Community Exists
Existence of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Existence of Epistemic Element	Existence			Epistemic Element Exists
Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Existence			Epistemic Presupposition Exists
Existence of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Existence of Epistemic Stance	Existence			Epistemic Stance Exists
Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Existence			Individual Epistemic Agent Exists
Existence of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Existence of Logical Presupposition	Existence			Logical Presupposition Exists
Existence of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Existence of Method Hierarchy	Existence
Existence of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Existence of Method	Existence
Existence of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Existence of Model	Existence
Existence of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Existence of Mosaic Split	Existence
Existence of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Existence of Norm Employment	Existence
Existence of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Existence of Normative Theory	Existence			Normative Theory Exists
Existence of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Existence of Question Acceptance	Existence			Question Acceptance Exists
Existence of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Existence of Question	Existence			Question Exists
Existence of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Existence of Scientific Mosaic	Existence
Existence of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Existence of Theory Acceptance	Existence			Theory Acceptance Exists
Existence of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Existence of Theory Pursuit	Existence
Existence of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Existence of Theory Use	Existence
Existence of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Existence of Theory	Existence			Theory Exists
Subtypes of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Subtypes of Acceptance Criteria	Subtypes
Subtypes of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Subtypes of Authority Delegation	Subtypes
Subtypes of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Subtypes of Community	Subtypes
Subtypes of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Subtypes of Compatibility Criteria	Subtypes
Subtypes of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Subtypes of Compatibility	Subtypes
Subtypes of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Subtypes of Definition	Subtypes
Subtypes of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Subtypes of Demarcation Criteria	Subtypes
Subtypes of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Subtypes of Descriptive Theory	Subtypes
Subtypes of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Subtypes of Discipline	Subtypes
Subtypes of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Subtypes of Epistemic Agent	Subtypes	Main	1	Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018) Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019)	Epistemic Community Individual Epistemic Agent
Subtypes of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Subtypes of Epistemic Community	Subtypes
Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Subtypes	Main	1	Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)	Question Theory
Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Subtypes of Epistemic Element	Subtypes	explicitness	2	Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)	Explicit Implicit
Subtypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Subtypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Subtypes
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Subtypes of Epistemic Stance	Subtypes	Main	1	Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018) Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018) Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)	Theory Use Theory Pursuit Question Acceptance Norm Employment Compatibility Theory Acceptance
Subtypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Subtypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	Subtypes
Subtypes of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Subtypes of Logical Presupposition	Subtypes
Subtypes of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Subtypes of Method Hierarchy	Subtypes
Subtypes of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Subtypes of Method	Subtypes
Subtypes of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Subtypes of Model	Subtypes
Subtypes of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Subtypes of Mosaic Split	Subtypes
Subtypes of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Subtypes of Norm Employment	Subtypes
Subtypes of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Subtypes of Normative Theory	Subtypes	Main	1	Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018)	Method
Subtypes of Outcome Inconclusive	Scientonomy	Outcome Inconclusive	Subtypes of Outcome Inconclusive	Subtypes
Subtypes of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Subtypes of Question Acceptance	Subtypes
Subtypes of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Subtypes of Question	Subtypes
Subtypes of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Subtypes of Scientific Mosaic	Subtypes
Subtypes of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Subtypes of Theory Acceptance	Subtypes
Subtypes of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Subtypes of Theory Pursuit	Subtypes
Subtypes of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Subtypes of Theory Use	Subtypes
Subtypes of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Subtypes of Theory	Subtypes	Main	1	Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015) Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016) Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018)	Normative Theory Descriptive Theory Definition
Supertypes of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Supertypes of Acceptance Criteria	Supertypes
Supertypes of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Supertypes of Authority Delegation	Supertypes
Supertypes of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Supertypes of Community	Supertypes
Supertypes of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Supertypes of Compatibility Criteria	Supertypes
Supertypes of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Supertypes of Compatibility	Supertypes			Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Supertypes of Definition	Supertypes			Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018)		Theory
Supertypes of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Supertypes of Demarcation Criteria	Supertypes
Supertypes of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Supertypes of Descriptive Theory	Supertypes			Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015)		Theory
Supertypes of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Supertypes of Discipline	Supertypes
Supertypes of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Supertypes of Epistemic Agent	Supertypes
Supertypes of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Supertypes of Epistemic Community	Supertypes			Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018)		Epistemic Agent
Supertypes of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Supertypes of Epistemic Element	Supertypes
Supertypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Supertypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Supertypes
Supertypes of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Supertypes of Epistemic Stance	Supertypes
Supertypes of Explicit	Scientonomy	Explicit	Supertypes of Explicit	Supertypes			Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)		Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Supertypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Supertypes
Supertypes of Implicit	Scientonomy	Implicit	Supertypes of Implicit	Supertypes			Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)		Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Supertypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	Supertypes			Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019)		Epistemic Agent
Supertypes of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Supertypes of Logical Presupposition	Supertypes
Supertypes of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Supertypes of Method Hierarchy	Supertypes
Supertypes of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Supertypes of Method	Supertypes			Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018)		Normative Theory
Supertypes of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Supertypes of Model	Supertypes
Supertypes of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Supertypes of Mosaic Split	Supertypes
Supertypes of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Supertypes of Norm Employment	Supertypes			Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Supertypes of Normative Theory	Supertypes			Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016)		Theory
Supertypes of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Supertypes of Question Acceptance	Supertypes			Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Supertypes of Question	Supertypes			Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)		Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Supertypes of Scientific Mosaic	Supertypes
Supertypes of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Supertypes of Theory Acceptance	Supertypes			Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Supertypes of Theory Pursuit	Supertypes			Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Supertypes of Theory Use	Supertypes			Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)		Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Supertypes of Theory	Supertypes			Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)		Epistemic Element

	Formulated Year	Authors List	Child	Disjoint Group	Disjoint Group Order
Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)	2015	Hakob Barseghyan	Method	Main	1
Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)	2018	William Rawleigh	Question	Main	1
Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)	2015	Hakob Barseghyan	Theory	Main	1
Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)	2018	Maxim Mirkin	Explicit	explicitness	2
Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)	2018	Maxim Mirkin	Implicit	explicitness	2

Main,explicitness

Question and Theory

Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015), Explicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018) and Implicit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Mirkin-2018)

	Community	Term	Topic	Theory	Existence
Existence of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Existence of Acceptance Criteria
Existence of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Existence of Authority Delegation
Existence of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Existence of Community	Community Exists	Exists
Existence of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Existence of Compatibility Criteria
Existence of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Existence of Compatibility
Existence of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Existence of Definition	Definition Exists	Exists
Existence of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Existence of Demarcation Criteria
Existence of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Existence of Descriptive Theory	Descriptive Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Existence of Discipline
Existence of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Existence of Epistemic Agent	Epistemic Agent Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Existence of Epistemic Community	Epistemic Community Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Existence of Epistemic Element	Epistemic Element Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Epistemic Presupposition Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Existence of Epistemic Stance	Epistemic Stance Exists	Exists
Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Individual Epistemic Agent Exists	Exists
Existence of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Existence of Logical Presupposition	Logical Presupposition Exists	Exists
Existence of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Existence of Method Hierarchy
Existence of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Existence of Method
Existence of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Existence of Model
Existence of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Existence of Mosaic Split
Existence of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Existence of Norm Employment
Existence of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Existence of Normative Theory	Normative Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Existence of Question Acceptance	Question Acceptance Exists	Exists
Existence of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Existence of Question	Question Exists	Exists
Existence of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Existence of Scientific Mosaic
Existence of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Existence of Theory Acceptance	Theory Acceptance Exists	Exists
Existence of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Existence of Theory Pursuit
Existence of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Existence of Theory Use
Existence of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Existence of Theory	Theory Exists	Exists

Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)

There are several options here: One, Two, Three and Four.

There is only one option: One There are no options.

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 Method Employment How do methods become employed by an epistemic agent? 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. The Third Law (Sebastien-2016) 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 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