What is accidental group? How should it be defined?
This term has to denote all those groups that are somehow accidental (e.g. left handed Armenian smokers). The task is to understand what makes these groups accidental.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Nicholas Overgaard in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. It is defined as: "A group that does not have a collective intentionality."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||19 May 2017||The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.||Yes|
|Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017)||A group that does not have a collective intentionality.||2017|
|Community||Theory||Accepted From||Accepted Until|
|Scientonomy||Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017)||2 February 2018|
|Modification||Community||Date Suggested||Summary||Verdict||Verdict Rationale||Date Assessed|
|Sciento-2017-0012||Scientonomy||19 May 2017||Accept a new taxonomy for group and its two sub-types - accidental group, and community.||Accepted||A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"c1 and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".c2 Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of group as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.c3 Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",c4 it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".c5||2 February 2018|
This definition aims to discern between accidental groups, i.e. the ones that don't have a collective intentionality, and actual communities, i.e. groups that do have collective intentionality.
There is currently no accepted view concerning the existence of accidental groups.
No classes are currently accepted as subtypes of an accidental group.
No classes are currently accepted as supertypes of an accidental group.
No associations of an accidental group are currently accepted.
If a question concerning the ontology of an accidental group is missing, please add it here.
If a question concerning the dynamics of an accidental group is missing, please add it here.
This term is also related to the following topic(s):