Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts

What classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?

In order to assess any scientific theory we must have not only some method of assessment, but we must also have empirical evidence about relevant phenomena. In the case of scientonomy, we must know what sort of evidence is relevant for assessing a scientonomic theory.

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.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

• 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.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record of the Question

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 January 2016	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.	Yes

All Direct Answers

The following direct answers to the question have been suggested:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)	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.	2015

If a direct answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Direct Answers

The following theories have been accepted as direct answers to this question:

Community	Theory	Formulation	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)	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.	1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

There have been no suggested modifications concerning direct answers to this question.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015).

Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

Some facts ought to be relevant to the assessment of a theory because the content of the theory itself implies their relevance, and others ought to be relevant simply by definition. When assessing a theory concerning scientific change, relevant facts that ought necessarily to be considered include questions pertinent to scientific change processes. For example: What theories and methods were part of the scientific mosaic of the community in question, both before and after the instance of scientific change? What modifications were proposed and what parts of the mosaic did they intend to replace? Which of these modifications became accepted into the mosaic, and how?

Relevant questions will depend on accepted views about the scope of scientonomy. For example, if scientonomy deals with scientific change at the level of scientific communities, then facts about the accepted views of communities ought to be relevant, and the views of particular individuals ought not. If scientonomy deals only with theory appraisal and not with theory construction, then it follows that facts concerning the former, but not the latter, ought to be considered.

Relevant facts will also depend on the content of the mosaic at the time in question. For example, it is anachronistic to speak of religious constraints on science in the seventeenth century since, at that time, religion and natural philosophy were not regarded as separate domains of knowledge, but as part of the same mosaic.1p. 111

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Assessment of Scientonomy. It has the following sub-topic(s):

• Anomalies

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

• Assessment of Scientonomy - Method
• Indicators of Method Employment
• Indicators of Theory Acceptance