Community:Scientonomy

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Scientonomy community was initially formed at the IHPST, University of Toronto around the time of the publication of Barseghyan's The Laws of Scientific Change1 with the main goal of advancing our knowledge of scientific change in a piecemeal and transparent fashion and establishing an empirical science of science, scientonomy. The community publishes the Journal of Scientonomy, edits the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy, organizes scientonomic seminars and workshops.

The community was established in 2015.

History

In the years preceding the publication of The Laws of Scientific Change1 (2012-2015), the community would mostly gather during winter seminar sessions. In 2015, the community started working on the establishment of a new empirical study of science, Scientonomy. To that end, the community launched the first Encyclopedia of Scientonomy early in 2016 with the aim of tracking the current state of communal knowledge concerning the process of scientific change, tracing and appraising the proposed modifications, as well as documenting open questions.

Hakob Barseghyan showcasing the workflow

In September of 2016, the community launched the Journal of Scientonomy with the first issue published in 2017. An essential component of the scientonomic workflow, the journal aims at publishing original research in the field and collecting all the proposed modifications.

In 2017-18, the community was testing and revising the new scientonomic workflow geared towards the piecemeal and transparent advancement of our communal knowledge.

In 2019, the community organized its inaugural conference which featured Hasok Chang, Jutta Schickore, and Lee McIntyre as its keynotes. The proceedings of the conference are published in 2022.2

In 2019 and 2020, the community developed a diagrammatic notation for visualizing epistemic entities and relations. Various visualization techniques were developed into a systematic diagrammatic notation in May 2019, during the Visualizing Worldviews project funded by Jackman Humanities Institute as part of their Scholars-in-Residence program.3 In the May 2020 edition of the program, the notation was applied to high-profile present-day debates on intelligent design, gender, climate change, and race.

The community holds its annual meetings in January or February. These annual meetings are traditionally hosted by the University of Toronto's Faculty Club.

Road-map

Nicholas Overgaard outlines The Tree of Knowledge project

The road-map of the community includes:

  • Refine the systematic ontology of scientific change that will be at the backbone of the database of intellectual history. A series of conferences and workshops will be organized with the aim of discussing and evaluating proposed modifications to the current ontology.
  • Launching a pilot tree of knowledge project to develop the schema for a historical database, design the respective website, as well as to fill the database with sample high-quality historical data to test the platform and showcase its potential to the broader community of historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science.
  • Creating a full-fledged tree of knowledge website and a comprehensive historical database that would eventually document belief systems of diverse epistemic agents across time periods, field of inquiry, and geographic regions.

Current Mosaic

Accepted Topics

Definitional Topics

Descriptive Topics

Here is the semantic tree of all the descriptive questions that this community currently accepts as legitimate topics for discussion:

Normative Topics

Accepted Theories

Definitions and Ontology

Here is the summary of the ontology and definitions currently accepted by the community:

Term Definition Upper Class Existence Subtypes Supertypes Associations Disjointness
Acceptance Criteria Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable. Endurant Exists An acceptance criterion is always part of some method.
Accidental Group Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017): A group that does not have a collective intentionality. Endurant Exists Group
Authority Delegation Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): 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. Association Exists On the basis of cardinality: Singular Authority Delegation and Multiple Authority Delegation. On the basis of reciprocity: Mutual Authority Delegation and One-sided Authority Delegation.
Community Community (Overgaard-2017): A group that has a collective intentionality. Endurant Exists Group A community can delegate authority to another community.
Compatibility Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance
Compatibility Criteria Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible. Endurant Exists A compatibility criterion is always part of some method.
Core Question Core Question (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core question of a discipline is a question identified in the discipline’s delineating theory as definitive of the discipline. Endurant Exists
Core Theory Core Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core theory of a discipline is a theory presupposed by the discipline’s core questions. Endurant Exists
Definition Definition (Barseghyan-2018): A statement of the meaning of a term. Endurant Exists Theory
Delineating Theory Delineating Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A second-order theory identifying the set of core questions of a discipline. Endurant Exists A discipline has one delineating theory.
Demarcation Criteria Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific. Endurant Exists A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Descriptive Theory Descriptive Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to describe something. Endurant Exists Theory
Discipline Discipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is characterized by (1) a non-empty set of core questions Q and (2) the delineating theory stating that Q are the core questions of the discipline. Endurant Exists A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has one delineating theory. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines.
Discipline Acceptance Discipline Acceptance (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if that agent accepts the core questions specified in the discipline’s delineating theory as well as the delineating theory itself. Perdurant Exists
Element Decay Perdurant Theory Decay
Epistemic Action Perdurant
Epistemic Agent Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. Endurant Exists Epistemic Community and Individual Epistemic Agent An epistemic agent can delegate authority to another epistemic agent.
Epistemic Community Endurant Exists Epistemic Agent
Epistemic Element Endurant Exists Question and Theory
Epistemic Presupposition Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): 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. Association Exists
Epistemic Stance Perdurant Exists Theory Use, Theory Pursuit, Question Acceptance, Norm Employment, Compatibility and Theory Acceptance
Error Error (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021): 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. Perdurant Exists
Explicable-Implicit Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent. Quality Implicit
Explicit Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent. Quality
Global Epistemic Action Perdurant
Group Group (Overgaard-2017): Two or more people who share any characteristic. Endurant Exists Community and Accidental Group
Hierarchical Authority Delegation Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x. Association Exists Multiple Authority Delegation
History of Scientific Change History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic. Endurant
Implicit Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Not explicit. Quality Explicable-Implicit and Inexplicable
Individual Epistemic Agent Endurant Exists Epistemic Agent
Individual Level Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment. Endurant
Inexplicable Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions. Quality Implicit
Local Action Availability Endurant
Local Epistemic Action Perdurant
Logical Presupposition Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): 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. Association Exists
Method Method (Barseghyan-2018): A set of criteria for theory evaluation. Endurant Exists Substantive Method and Procedural Method Normative Theory An acceptance criterion is always part of some method. A compatibility criterion is always part of some method. A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Method Hierarchy Endurant
Methodology Methodology (Barseghyan-2018): A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. Endurant Exists
Model Endurant
Mosaic Merge Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic. Endurant Exists
Mosaic Split Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics. Perdurant Exists
Multiple Authority Delegation Multiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): 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. Association Exists Hierarchical Authority Delegation and Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation Authority Delegation
Mutual Authority Delegation Mutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): 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. Association Exists Authority Delegation
Non-Epistemic Community Endurant
Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x. Association Exists Multiple Authority Delegation
Norm Employment Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance
Normative Theory Normative Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something. Endurant Exists Method Theory
One-sided Authority Delegation One-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): 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. Association Exists Authority Delegation
Outcome Inconclusive Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met. Quality
Outcome Not Satisfied Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. Quality
Outcome Satisfied Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. Quality
Procedural Method Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions. Endurant Exists Method
Question Question (Rawleigh-2018): A topic of inquiry. Endurant Exists Epistemic Element A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines. A question can have subquestions. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Question Acceptance Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018): A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance
Question Pursuit Perdurant
Reason Endurant
Scientific Change Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another. Perdurant Exists
Scientific Community Endurant Exists
Scientific Mosaic Scientific Mosaic (Rawleigh-2022): A model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent. Endurant Exists
Scientonomy Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change. Endurant Exists
Singular Authority Delegation Singular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): 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. Association Exists Authority Delegation
Social Level Social Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. Endurant
Sociocultural Factors Endurant Exists
Subdiscipline Subdiscipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline A is a subdiscipline of another discipline B, iff the set of questions of A, QA, is a proper subset of the questions of B, QB, i.e. QAQB. Endurant Exists
Subquestion Subquestion (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A question Q is a subquestion of another question Q’, iff any direct answer to Q is also a partial answer to Q’. Association Exists
Substantive Method Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition. Endurant Exists Method
Theory Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions. Endurant Exists Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory and Definition Epistemic Element A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Theory Acceptance Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018): A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance
Theory Decay Perdurant Element Decay
Theory Pursuit Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance
Theory Use Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application. Perdurant Exists Epistemic Stance

Dynamics

These are all the descriptive topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:
TopicAccepted AnswerAnswer's FormulationAnswer Type
Changeability of the Scientific MosaicDogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Compatibility of Mosaic ElementsCompatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.Complete
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific ChangeUnderdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Complete
Mechanism of CompatibilityThe Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)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.Complete
Mechanism of Error RejectionError Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)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.Complete
Mechanism of Method EmploymentThe Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.Complete
Mechanism of Method RejectionMethod Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.Complete
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitNecessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Complete
Mechanism of Norm EmploymentThe Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.Complete
Mechanism of Question RejectionQuestion Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become accepted.Complete
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeMethodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeQuestion Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become accepted.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)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.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeMethod Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeNecessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeUnderdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe First Law (Barseghyan-2015)An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)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.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeDogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)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.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic ElementsThe First Law (Barseghyan-2015)An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for MethodsThe First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Normative TheoriesThe First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for TheoriesThe First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015)An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.Complete
Mechanism of Theory AcceptanceThe Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)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.Complete
Necessary Epistemic ElementsNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Necessary MethodsNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Complete
Necessary Normative TheoriesNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Necessary TheoriesNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Ontology of Scientific ChangeTheory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.Partial
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track RecordResponse to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific MethodResponse to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing PermanentResponse to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social ConstructionResponse to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Possibility of ScientonomyPossibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.Complete
Pursuit as AcceptancePursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.Complete
Role of Methodology in Scientific ChangeMethodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.Complete
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific ChangeSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Partial
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory AcceptanceSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Complete
Status of Technological KnowledgeTechnological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018)Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method EmploymentAsynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)The employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method RejectionSynchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.Complete
Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) is Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)Harder's zeroth law is tautological.Complete
The Paradox of Normative PropositionsResolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016)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.Complete
Theory Assessment OutcomesTheory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.Complete

Norms

These are all the normative topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:
TopicAccepted AnswerAnswer's FormulationAnswer Type
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant FactsAssessment 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.Complete
Assessment of ScientonomyAssessment 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.Partial
Indicators of Method EmploymentIndicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Indicators of Theory AcceptanceIndicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Scientonomic WorkflowScientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
  1. documenting the body of accepted communal 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.
Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and PursuitScope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and AppraisalScope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and NormativeScope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and ImplicitScope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)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.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and SocialScope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)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.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleScope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Complete
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)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.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)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.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)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.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)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.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)
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. Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)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.Partial
Workflow - Goals of Peer ReviewGoals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.Complete
Workflow - Handling Ripple EffectsHandling Ripple Effects - Editorial House Keeping (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)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.Complete
Workflow - Publishing Modification CommentsPublishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-Yan-2019)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.Complete
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting ModificationsAllow Modification Reformulations (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)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.Complete

Open Questions

Here are all the open questions currently accepted by the community:
TopicTopic TypeQuestionFormulated Year
Acceptance CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is acceptance criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Accidental GroupDefinitionalWhat is accidental group? How should it be defined?2016
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant FactsNormativeWhat classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?2015
Associations of Acceptance CriteriaDescriptiveHow is the class of acceptance criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between acceptance criteria, as well as between acceptance criteria and instances of other classes?2015
Associations of CommunityDescriptiveHow is the class of community associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between communities, as well as between a community and instances of other classes?2016
Associations of Compatibility CriteriaDescriptiveHow is the class of compatibility criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between compatibility criterias, as well as between a compatibility criteria and instances of other classes?2015
Associations of Delineating TheoryDescriptiveHow is the class of delineating theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between delineating theories, as well as between a delineating theory and instances of other classes?2021
Associations of Demarcation CriteriaDescriptiveHow is the class of demarcation criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between demarcation criterias, as well as between a demarcation criteria and instances of other classes?2015
Associations of DisciplineDescriptiveHow is the class of discipline associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between disciplines, as well as between a discipline and instances of other classes?2016
Associations of Epistemic AgentDescriptiveHow is the class of epistemic agent associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic agents, as well as between an epistemic agent and instances of other classes?2018
Associations of MethodDescriptiveHow is the class of method associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between methods, as well as between a method and instances of other classes?2015
Associations of QuestionDescriptiveHow is the class of question associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between questions, as well as between a question and instances of other classes?2018
Associations of TheoryDescriptiveHow is the class of theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between theories, as well as between a theory and instances of other classes?2015
Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Changeability of the Scientific MosaicDescriptiveUnder what circumstances does scientific change become impossible?2015
CommunityDefinitionalWhat is community? How should it be defined?2016
CompatibilityDefinitionalWhat is compatibility? How should it be defined?2015
Compatibility CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is compatibility criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Compatibility of Mosaic ElementsDescriptiveAre all elements within a mosaic compatible with one another?2018
Core QuestionDefinitionalWhat is core question? How should it be defined?2021
Core TheoryDefinitionalWhat is core theory? How should it be defined?2021
DefinitionDefinitionalWhat is definition? How should it be defined?2018
Delineating TheoryDefinitionalWhat is delineating theory? How should it be defined?2021
Demarcation CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is demarcation criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Descriptive TheoryDefinitionalWhat is descriptive theory? How should it be defined?2015
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific ChangeDescriptiveIs the process of scientific change a strictly deterministic process? Will two unconnected communities experience a similar historical series of changes in their individual mosaics?2015
DisciplineDefinitionalWhat is discipline? How should it be defined?2016
Discipline AcceptanceDefinitionalWhat is discipline acceptance? How should it be defined?2021
Epistemic AgentDefinitionalWhat is epistemic agent? How should it be defined?2018
Epistemic PresuppositionDefinitionalWhat is epistemic presupposition? How should it be defined?2019
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards epistemic elements?2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative TheoriesDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards normative theories?2016
Epistemic Stances Towards QuestionsDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards questions?2018
Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards theories?2015
ErrorDefinitionalWhat is error? How should it be defined?2019
Existence of Acceptance CriteriaDescriptiveDoes acceptance criteria exist?2015
Existence of Accidental GroupDescriptiveDoes an accidental group exist?2016
Existence of Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes authority delegation exist?2016
Existence of CommunityDescriptiveDoes a community exist?2016
Existence of CompatibilityDescriptiveDoes compatibility exist?2015
Existence of Compatibility CriteriaDescriptiveDoes a compatibility criteria exist?2015
Existence of Core QuestionDescriptiveDoes a core question exist?2021
Existence of Core TheoryDescriptiveDoes a core theory exist?2021
Existence of DefinitionDescriptiveDoes a definition exist?2018
Existence of Delineating TheoryDescriptiveDoes a delineating theory exist?2021
Existence of Demarcation CriteriaDescriptiveDoes a demarcation criteria exist?2015
Existence of Descriptive TheoryDescriptiveDoes a descriptive theory exist?2015
Existence of DisciplineDescriptiveDoes a discipline exist?2016
Existence of Discipline AcceptanceDescriptiveDoes discipline acceptance exist?2021
Existence of Epistemic AgentDescriptiveDoes an epistemic agent exist?2018
Existence of Epistemic CommunityDescriptiveDoes an epistemic community exist?2016
Existence of Epistemic ElementDescriptiveDoes an epistemic element exist?2015
Existence of Epistemic PresuppositionDescriptiveDoes an epistemic presupposition exist?2019
Existence of Epistemic StanceDescriptiveDoes an epistemic stance exist?2015
Existence of ErrorDescriptiveDoes an error exist?2019
Existence of GroupDescriptiveDoes a group exist?2016
Existence of Hierarchical Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes hierarchical authority delegation exist?2017
Existence of Individual Epistemic AgentDescriptiveDoes an individual epistemic agent exist?2019
Existence of Logical PresuppositionDescriptiveDoes a logical presupposition exist?2021
Existence of MethodDescriptiveDoes a method exist?2015
Existence of MethodologyDescriptiveDoes a methodology exist?2015
Existence of Mosaic MergeDescriptiveDoes a mosaic merge exist?2015
Existence of Mosaic SplitDescriptiveDoes a mosaic split exist?2015
Existence of Multiple Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes multiple authority delegation exist?2017
Existence of Mutual Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes mutual authority delegation exist?2016
Existence of Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes non-hierarchical authority delegation exist?2017
Existence of Norm EmploymentDescriptiveDoes norm employment exist?2018
Existence of Normative TheoryDescriptiveDoes a normative theory exist?2015
Existence of One-sided Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes one-sided authority delegation exist?2016
Existence of Procedural MethodDescriptiveDoes a procedural method exist?2015
Existence of QuestionDescriptiveDoes a question exist?2018
Existence of Question AcceptanceDescriptiveDoes question acceptance exist?2018
Existence of Scientific ChangeDescriptiveDoes a scientific change exist?2015
Existence of Scientific CommunityDescriptiveDoes a scientific community exist?2015
Existence of Scientific MosaicDescriptiveDoes a scientific mosaic exist?2015
Existence of ScientonomyDescriptiveDoes scientonomy exist?2016
Existence of Singular Authority DelegationDescriptiveDoes singular authority delegation exist?2017
Existence of Sociocultural FactorsDescriptiveDoes a sociocultural factors exist?2016
Existence of SubdisciplineDescriptiveDoes a subdiscipline exist?2021
Existence of SubquestionDescriptiveDoes a subquestion exist?2021
Existence of Substantive MethodDescriptiveDoes a substantive method exist?2015
Existence of TheoryDescriptiveDoes a theory exist?2015
Existence of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveDoes theory acceptance exist?2015
Existence of Theory PursuitDescriptiveDoes theory pursuit exist?2015
Existence of Theory UseDescriptiveDoes theory use exist?2015
Explicable-ImplicitDefinitionalWhat is explicable-implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
ExplicitDefinitionalWhat is explicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
GroupDefinitionalWhat is group? How should it be defined?2016
Hierarchical Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is hierarchical authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
History of Scientific ChangeDefinitionalWhat is history of scientific change? How should it be defined?2015
ImplicitDefinitionalWhat is implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
Indicators of Method EmploymentNormativeWhat kind of historical markers could be taken as indicators that a method was employed by an agent at a given time?2015
Indicators of Theory AcceptanceNormativeWhat types of historical markers can be taken as indicative that a theory was accepted by an agent at a given time?2015
Individual LevelDefinitionalWhat is individual level? How should it be defined?2015
InexplicableDefinitionalWhat is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
Logical PresuppositionDefinitionalWhat is logical presupposition? How should it be defined?2021
Mechanism of CompatibilityDescriptiveUnder what conditions can two elements coexist in the same mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Error RejectionDescriptiveWhen epistemic agent discover that a theory was accepted erroneously, they often reject the theory; the theory rejection theorem suggests that those propositions are replaced by something. What are they replaced by?2018
Mechanism of Method EmploymentDescriptiveHow do methods become employed by an epistemic agent?2015
Mechanism of Method RejectionDescriptiveWhen does an employed method become rejected?2016
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitDescriptiveWhat 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?2015
Mechanism of Norm EmploymentDescriptiveHow do norms become employed by an epistemic agent?2022
Mechanism of Question AcceptanceDescriptiveHow do questions become accepted as legitimate topics of inquiry? What is the mechanism of question acceptance?2018
Mechanism of Question RejectionDescriptiveHow do questions become rejected? What is the mechanism of question rejection?2021
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic ElementsDescriptiveWhat makes the epistemic elements of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for MethodsDescriptiveWhat makes the methods of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for TheoriesDescriptiveWhat makes the theories of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveHow do theories become accepted into a mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Theory RejectionDescriptive2015
MethodDefinitionalWhat is method? How should it be defined?2015
MethodologyDefinitionalWhat is methodology? How should it be defined?2015
Mosaic MergeDefinitionalWhat is mosaic merge? How should it be defined?2015
Mosaic SplitDefinitionalWhat is mosaic split? How should it be defined?2015
Multiple Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is multiple authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Mutual Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is mutual authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Nature of AppraisalDescriptive2015
Necessary MethodsDescriptiveAre there methods that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What methods, if any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?2015
Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is non-hierarchical authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Norm EmploymentDefinitionalWhat is norm employment? How should it be defined?2018
Normative TheoryDefinitionalWhat is normative theory? How should it be defined?2015
One-sided Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is one-sided authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Outcome InconclusiveDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome inconclusive be defined?2015
Outcome Not SatisfiedDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome not satisfied be defined?2017
Outcome SatisfiedDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome satisfied be defined?2017
Possibility of ScientonomyDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track RecordDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible given the bad track record of previous attempts to create a general theory of scientific change?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific MethodDescriptiveHow can there be scientonomy if the methods of science are changeable?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing PermanentDescriptiveHow can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social ConstructionDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible if science is a social construction?2015
Procedural MethodDefinitionalWhat is procedural method? How should it be defined?2015
Pursuit as AcceptanceDescriptiveIs the category of theory pursuit really distinct from that of theory acceptance?2018
QuestionDefinitionalWhat is question? How should it be defined?2018
Question AcceptanceDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a question is accepted? How should question acceptance be defined?2018
Role of Methodology in Scientific ChangeDescriptiveWhat role do methodologies play in scientific change? Are methodologies capable of affecting employed methods?2015
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of theory acceptance?2015
Scientific ChangeDefinitionalWhat is scientific change? How should it be defined?2015
Scientific MosaicDefinitionalWhat is scientific mosaic? How should it be defined?2015
Scientonomic WorkflowNormativeHow should changes in the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge be introduced? What are the steps and procedures of the scientonomic workflow?2016
ScientonomyDefinitionalWhat is scientonomy? How should it be defined?2016
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and PursuitNormativeHow ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and AppraisalNormativeOught the process of scientific change be viewed from the perspective of theory construction or that of theory appraisal?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and NormativeNormativeOught a scientonomic theory be descriptive or normative?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and ImplicitNormativeOught a scientonomic theory account for only changes to explicit elements of the mosaic or must it also deal with changes in implicit elements that are not openly stated?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and SocialNormativeOught a scientonomic theory account for changes in the mosaics of individual scientists, the mosaics of communities, or both?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleNormativeFor changes in the mosaic of what time period ought a scientonomic theory account? For changes in which fields of inquiry ought it to account? Ought it deal only in grand changes, or should it account for minor changes as well?2015
Singular Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is singular authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Social LevelDefinitionalWhat is social level? How should it be defined?2015
Static vs. Dynamic MethodsDescriptiveAre there any methods which are immune to change?2015
Status of Technological KnowledgeDescriptiveWhat is the status of technological knowledge in the scientific mosaic? Can technological knowledge be accepted into a mosaic?2015
SubdisciplineDefinitionalWhat is subdiscipline? How should it be defined?2021
SubquestionDefinitionalWhat is subquestion? How should it be defined?2021
Substantive MethodDefinitionalWhat is substantive method? How should it be defined?2015
Subtypes of Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of authority delegation?2016
Subtypes of Element DecayDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of element decay?2021
Subtypes of Epistemic AgentDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic agent?2018
Subtypes of Epistemic ElementDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic element?2015
Subtypes of Epistemic StanceDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic stance?2015
Subtypes of GroupDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a group?2016
Subtypes of ImplicitDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of implicit?2018
Subtypes of MethodDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a method?2015
Subtypes of Multiple Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of multiple authority delegation?2017
Subtypes of Normative TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a normative theory?2015
Subtypes of TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a theory?2015
Supertypes of Accidental GroupDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an accidental group?2016
Supertypes of CommunityDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a community?2016
Supertypes of CompatibilityDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of compatibility?2015
Supertypes of DefinitionDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a definition?2018
Supertypes of Descriptive TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a descriptive theory?2015
Supertypes of Epistemic CommunityDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an epistemic community?2016
Supertypes of Explicable-ImplicitDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of explicable-implicit?2018
Supertypes of Hierarchical Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of hierarchical authority delegation?2017
Supertypes of Individual Epistemic AgentDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an individual epistemic agent?2019
Supertypes of InexplicableDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of inexplicable?2018
Supertypes of MethodDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a method?2015
Supertypes of Multiple Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of multiple authority delegation?2017
Supertypes of Mutual Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of mutual authority delegation?2016
Supertypes of Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of non-hierarchical authority delegation?2017
Supertypes of Norm EmploymentDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of norm employment?2018
Supertypes of Normative TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a normative theory?2015
Supertypes of One-sided Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of one-sided authority delegation?2016
Supertypes of Procedural MethodDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a procedural method?2015
Supertypes of QuestionDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a question?2018
Supertypes of Question AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of question acceptance?2018
Supertypes of Singular Authority DelegationDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of singular authority delegation?2017
Supertypes of Substantive MethodDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a substantive method?2015
Supertypes of TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a theory?2015
Supertypes of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory acceptance?2015
Supertypes of Theory DecayDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory decay?2021
Supertypes of Theory PursuitDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory pursuit?2015
Supertypes of Theory UseDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory use?2015
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method EmploymentDescriptiveWhich factors influence the process of method employment? Do new methods become accepted simultaneously with the acceptance of a theory?2015
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method RejectionDescriptiveWhen a method is rejected, must it be the case that a theory has also been rejected?2015
Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)DescriptiveIs the law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 a tautology?2018
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIs Barseghyan's original second law a tautology?2013
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveIs the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?2017
Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)DescriptiveIs Harder's zeroth law a tautology?2016
The Paradox of Normative PropositionsDescriptiveIf methodologies are themselves theories that can be accepted by a community, then how can methods be deductive consequences of accepted theories, given that historically employed methods and accepted methodologies have often been inconsistent with one another?2014
TheoryDefinitionalWhat is theory? How should it be defined?2015
Theory AcceptanceDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is accepted? How should theory acceptance be defined?2015
Theory Assessment OutcomesDescriptiveWhat outcomes can possibly obtain as a result of an assessment of a theory by a method? What is the complete list of theory assessment outcomes?2015
Theory PursuitDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is pursued? How should theory pursuit be defined?2015
Theory UseDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is used? How should theory use be defined?2015
Workflow - Goals of Peer ReviewNormativeShould peer reviewers evaluate a submitted paper for the pursuitworthiness or acceptability of the content of the paper?2019
Workflow - Handling Ripple EffectsNormative2019
Workflow - Publishing Modification CommentsNormativeShould the discussions concerning a suggested modification be published? If so, when and how should they be published?2019
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting ModificationsNormativeAre the commentators of suggested modifications allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations?2019

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of all modifications suggested to the mosaic of this community:
Modification Topic Date Suggested Summary Date Assessed Verdict Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2016-0001 Mechanism of Method Employment, The Paradox of Normative Propositions 3 September 2016 Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from all accepted theories and employed methods but only from some. 21 January 2017 Accepted There was a community consensus that "the new formulation of the third law does bring an additional level of precision to our understanding of the mechanism of method change".c1 The community agreed that the new formulation "makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance".c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the modification "solves the paradox of normative propositions".c3
Sciento-2016-0002 Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory, Methodology 3 September 2016 Accept a new taxonomy for theory, normative theory, descriptive theory to reintroduce normative propositions (such as those of ethics or methodology) to the scientific mosaic. 23 January 2017 Not Accepted Since this modification consisted of two interrelated but essentially distinct suggestions - one definitional and one ontological - it was decided by the community to divide it into two modifications so that the gist of the proposed suggestions is properly articulated. In particular, it was agreed that there are two modifications in "the heart of this single modification - one ontological, the other definitional".c1 It was also agreed that the current formulation "is exclusively definitional, and does not give the community an opportunity to appreciate (and, well, accept) the ontological changes that come along with it".c2 Consequently, it was decided to divide this modification into two modifications - one definitional and one ontological.c3
Sciento-2016-0003 Authority Delegation 7 September 2016 Accept the notion of authority delegation. 1 February 2017 Accepted There was a community consensus that the concept of authority delegation is a significant contribution to scientonomy, as it "sheds light on the mechanism by which the more local, specialized mosaics of epistemic/scientific sub-communities gives rise to the more global scientific mosaic (of *the* Scientific Community), and all in terms of theories and methods".c1 It was also noted that the concept "has already been tacitly accepted by our community"c2 as it has been incorporated in some recent scientonomic research. One further suggestion was to continue refining the concept of authority delegation by focusing on cases "where the delegating community applies its own additional criteria before accepting what the experts tell them".c3
Sciento-2016-0004 Mutual Authority Delegation, One-sided Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Authority Delegation, Existence of Mutual Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Mutual Authority Delegation, Existence of One-sided Authority Delegation, Supertypes of One-sided Authority Delegation 7 September 2016 Provided that the notion of authority delegation is accepted, accept the notions of mutual authority delegation and one-sided authority delegation as subtypes of authority delegation. 2 February 2018 Accepted Following a period of discussion, it was finally agreed that "the current definitions of authority delegation, mutual authority delegation, and one-sided authority delegation, despite their problems, are currently the best available such definitions".c1 It was noted that these definitions don't take into the account the possibility of conditional authority delegation, where community A is prepared to accept the findings of another community on a certain topic only if these findings also satisfy some additional criteria imposed by community A. It was argued that there might be cases where a community's reliance on the findings of another community might be "conditional in ways that the current authority delegation definition is too restrictive to encompass".c2 The idea of conditional delegation was found pursuit-worhty.c3 It was also stressed that these definitions are only the first step towards a deeper understanding of the mechanism of authority delegation. Scientonomists were advised to pursue the idea of deducing "theorems concerning theory acceptance and method employment in delegating mosaics".c4
Sciento-2017-0001 Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory, Theory, Methodology 23 January 2017 Accept new definitions for theory, normative theory, and descriptive theory. Also, modify the definition of methodology to reflect these changes. 15 February 2017 Accepted The community agreed that this is "an important addition to theoretical scientonomy".c1 It was agreed that since "the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed".c2 It was emphasized that if we're going to have any sort of conversation on the status of normative propositions in the mosaic, "then we need to start from a definition".c3
Sciento-2017-0002 Theory Acceptance, Subtypes of Theory, Supertypes of Normative Theory, Existence of Normative Theory 23 January 2017 Accept a new ontology of scientific change where the two fundamental elements are theories - both descriptive and normative - and methods. 15 February 2017 Accepted The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.c1 c2 c3 It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".c4
Sciento-2017-0003 27 January 2017 Accept that licenses to teach [ʾijāzāt] are reliable indicators of which texts were considered authoritative in the Medieval Arabic scientific mosaic (MASM) in c. 750-1258 CE in the Abbasid caliphate. Thus, a proposition can be said to be accepted in MASM if the evidence of the licenses to teach [ʾijāzāt] indicates so. 16 October 2021 Accepted Commentators agreed that Fatigati provided "a compelling case for the power of ‘authoritative texts’ to serve as indicators of accepted theories in MASM"c1 and that "it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM".c2 It was also noted that we must "take the idea of the MASM as a monolithic community with a grain of salt",c3 which is in tune with Fatigati's own position. Fatigati's modification was also praised "as an exemplar for future work in observational scientonomy" especially as due to its potential to spur "further interest in studies of scientific mosaics outside of the immediate Western tradition".c4 It was noted that this "type of research will need to be carried out on a very large scale if observational scientonomy is to achieve its lofty goals". Specifically, research focusing on various "small communities" could potentially "bring some observational evidence into the discussion of Necessary Elements" and "might prove of interest for future scientonomists interested in exploring the Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change".c5
Sciento-2017-0004 Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Employed Method, Theory Assessment Outcomes, Outcome Inconclusive, Outcome Satisfied, Outcome Not Satisfied 5 February 2017 Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method. 29 November 2017 Accepted The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.c3
Sciento-2017-0005 Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) 5 February 2017 Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. 29 November 2017 Accepted The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.
Sciento-2017-0006 Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes 5 February 2017 Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. Open
Sciento-2017-0007 Singular Authority Delegation, Multiple Authority Delegation, Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Singular Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Multiple Authority Delegation, Existence of Multiple Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Multiple Authority Delegation, Existence of Singular Authority Delegation, Existence of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation 19 May 2017 Accept the definitions of the following subtypes of authority delegation: singular authority delegation, multiple authority delegation, hierarchical authority delegation, and non-hierarchical authority delegation. 23 October 2018 Accepted While the notions of singular and multiple authority delegation didn't cause much controversy, the notions of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation gave rise to notable disagreement among scientonomists. As a result, the modification was in discussion for about a year and a half.c1 Eventually, a consensus emerged mostly as a result of offline (in-person) discussion meetings. It was agreed that "for decisions that are not rote and routine, it seems highly unlikely that a pre-established hierarchy of authority delegation does or could exist, nor could a pre-established belief that all authorities should be given equal weight".c2 However, it was also agreed that Loiselle's study "have identified at least one aspect of hierarchical authority delegation in epistemic communities",c3 for "there seem to be instances where some experts occupy privileged positions in the eyes of those delegating authority" and that "alone is sufficient to suggest that hierarchies of authority delegation exists, regardless of of how transient or fixed they might be".c4
Sciento-2017-0008 19 May 2017 Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Monet: A work claimed to be by Monet is authentic if it is considered authentic by the Wildenstein Institute. Open
Sciento-2017-0009 19 May 2017 Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Picasso: a work claimed to be by Picasso is authentic if it is has been certified as authentic by both Maya Widmaier-Picasso and Claude Ruiz-Picasso. Open
Sciento-2017-0010 19 May 2017 Accept the following reconstruction of the authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Modigliani between 1997 and 2015: a work claimed to be by Modigliani is authentic iff (1) it is in the Ceroni catalogue raisonné or (2) if it is not in catalogue and has been certified as authentic by Marc Restellini. Open
Sciento-2017-0011 19 May 2017 Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Renoir: a work claimed to be by Renoir is authentic iff (1) it has been certified as authentic by the Wildenstein institute or (2) it has not been dismissed by the Wildenstein institute and it is included in the Bernheim-Jeune catalogue. Open
Sciento-2017-0012 Group, Community, Accidental Group, Existence of Community, Supertypes of Community, Existence of Accidental Group, Supertypes of Accidental Group, Subtypes of Group, Existence of Group 19 May 2017 Accept a new taxonomy for group and its two sub-types - accidental group, and community. 2 February 2018 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
Sciento-2017-0013 Associations of Community 19 May 2017 Accept that communities can consist of other communities, i.e. that there is such a thing as a sub-community. Open
Sciento-2017-0014 Epistemic Community, Non-Epistemic Community 19 May 2017 Provided that the definition of community is accepted, accept new definitions of epistemic community and non-epistemic community as sub-types of community. Open
Sciento-2017-0015 Epistemic Community as Part of Non-Epistemic Community 19 May 2017 Provided that the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted, accept that a non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities. Open The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2017-0013 and Sciento-2017-0014 all become accepted.
Sciento-2018-0001 Question 12 May 2018 Accept the definition of question as a topic of inquiry. 26 September 2018 Accepted The consensus was reached as a result of in-person consultations with scientonomists mostly outside of the discussion page of this modification. It was agreed that as the only currently published definition of the term, Rawleigh's definition is to be accepted as the best available. An alternative definition of question as "a topic of scientific inquiry"c1 was presented as a potentially pursuit-worthy direction. However, it was eventually agreed that including "scientificity" into the definition of question conflates "the question of how a question should be defined" with "the question of what stances can be taken towards questions".c2 It does not distinguish "the propositional content of the element itself" and "its historical fate", for "scientificity or lack thereof doesn't change the propositional content of the question".c3
Sciento-2018-0002 Subtypes of Epistemic Element, Supertypes of Question, Existence of Question 12 May 2018 Accept the ontology of epistemic elements with theories, methods, and questions as distinct epistemic elements. 26 September 2018 Accepted Following several focused discussions - both in-person and on the discussion page of this modification - it was finally decided that the modification is to be accepted. Three important clarifications were made. First, it was noted that Rawleigh only shows that questions cannot be reduced either to methods or to theories, but it is still conceivable "that questions may be functions of both theories and methods simultaneously".c1 Second, it was decided that accepting the modification is still warranted, since currently we don't have any idea how questions could be reduced to a conjunction of theories and methods.c2 Third, scientonomists are actively encouraged to pursue the question of possibility of reducing questions to a conjunction of theories and methods.c3
Sciento-2018-0003 Question Acceptance, Epistemic Stances Towards Questions, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Question Acceptance, Existence of Question Acceptance 12 May 2018 Accept that the epistemic stance that can be taken by an epistemic agent towards a question is question acceptance (the opposite is unacceptance), where question acceptance is defined as "a question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry". 1 November 2018 Accepted It was noted that "the whole point of adding questions to the ontology of epistemic elements was that we can legitimately speak of a question being accepted by a certain agent at a certain time".c1 The discussion also revealed a need to distinguish "a situation where no consensus exists from a situation where a consensus exists that a question is illegitimate".c2 In other words, "just as question acceptance, theory acceptance too seems to allow for three values: (clearly) accepted; (clearly) unaccepted; no consensus".c3 Thus, a new question was suggested concerning the binary character of epistemic stances: "are all epistemic stances binary, or do they allow for more than two values?"c4
Sciento-2018-0004 12 May 2018 Accept the questions of the mechanism question acceptance and indicators of question acceptance as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. 1 November 2018 Accepted As the modification concerned exclusively questions, it was set to be accepted automatically once its "parent" modifications became accepted. Thus, the questions of the mechanism of question acceptance and indicators of question acceptance became automatically accepted once the presupposed modifications were accepted.
Sciento-2018-0005 Method, Methodology 8 October 2018 Accept the new definitions of method as a set of criteria for theory evaluation and methodology as a normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. 1 September 2019 Accepted The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, following a series of discussions. It was noted that the new definition "does clarify the scientific understanding of methods as normative theories that can be both accepted and employed".c1 It was also highlighted that the consensus on this modification "has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the speakers treated the suggested definition of method as accepted".c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the acceptance of "this definition will require a whole series of changes to other theories already accepted by the scientonomic community to accord with the new definitions, for example, the Methodology can shape Method theorem."c3 This raises an important workflow-related question: does this mean that the encyclopedia editors have the right to make the respective changes?c4
Sciento-2018-0006 Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories, Theory Acceptance, Supertypes of Method, Subtypes of Theory, Associations of Theory, Associations of Question, Subtypes of Normative Theory, Supertypes of Definition, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Norm Employment, Existence of Norm Employment, Existence of Definition 8 October 2018 Accept the new ontology of epistemic elements with, theories and questions are the two basic epistemic elements where and each theory is an attempt to answer a certain question, theories can be of three types – descriptive, normative, or definitions, and methods are a subtype of normative theory. 1 September 2019 Accepted Following a series of off-line discussions, a consensus emerged concerning this modification: it was agreed that the modification is to be accepted.c1 It was mentioned that most of the elements of this new ontology "has already been accepted by the scientonomic community".c2 It was also stressed that "the consensus has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the presenters treated this new ontology as accepted."c3 The fact that the consensus concerning this modification has been achieved primarily off-line, i.e. outside of the discussion pages of this encyclopedia suggests that the scientonomic "workflow must have a way of accommodating these discussions".c4
Sciento-2018-0007 Definition 8 October 2018 Accept the definition of definition as a statement of the meaning of a term. 1 September 2019 Accepted The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that whether or not "definitions can have a truth value" is irrelevant to this modification and that "the question of most relevance to scientonomy is whether definitions can be accepted or not accepted by an epistemic agent".c1 It was also noted that the consensus concerning this modification "has manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto."c2
Sciento-2018-0008 Norm Employment 8 October 2018 Accept the definition of norm employment. 1 September 2019 Accepted The consensus on this modification emerged mostly off-line.c1 Importantly, it was also emphasized that its acceptance may have a ripple effect on other accepted definitions.c2 It was not clear whether "the acceptance of a new theory could be considered to implicitly grant permission to the editors to make small changes to old theories for the sake of maintaining consistency, without the need for explicit review and acceptance".c3 Thus, a new question concerning handling this ripple effect was accepted.
Sciento-2018-0009 Scientific Mosaic 8 October 2018 Accept the new definition of scientific mosaic as a set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by the epistemic agent. 17 May 2020 Accepted Initially, the modification raised an objection from Patton who argued that the modification "is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; epistemic agent, which has not yet been defined within scientonomy".c1 This objection received two counterarguments. According to Barseghyan, the lack of such a definition of epistemic agent should not "be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of scientific mosaic", since inevitably any taxonomy contains terms that "rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms".c2 This point was seconded by Rawleigh who argued that the definition of scientific mosaic is to be accepted regardless of whether there is an accepted definition of epistemic agent, since "it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic".c3 In early 2020, Patton dropped his objection as he found that there was "sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scientific mosaic, even without first accepting a definition of epistemic agent".c4 Additionally, Rawleigh argued that the definition is to be accepted since we have "already accepted the revised question-theory ontology".c5
Sciento-2018-0010 8 October 2018 Accept that epistemic stances of all types can be taken explicitly and/or implicitly and that epistemic elements of all types can be explicit and/or implicit. 1 September 2019 Accepted The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line.c1 It was agreed that this modification is to be accepted, as it "opens the way for any epistemic stance or element to be either implicit or explicit, with the arbiter for any given case being empirical evidence".c2
Sciento-2018-0011 Explicit, Implicit, Explicable-Implicit, Inexplicable, Subtypes of Implicit, Supertypes of Inexplicable 28 December 2018 Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable. 1 September 2019 Accepted The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."c2
Sciento-2018-0012 Status of Technological Knowledge 28 December 2018 Accept that propositional technological knowledge – i.e. technological questions, theories, and methods – can be part of a mosaic. 11 February 2020 Accepted After a series of mostly off-line discussions, it has been agreed that the modification is to be accepted. It was agreed that "Mirkin's discussion of potential counterarguments [are] convincing".c1 The consensus is that "Mirkin presents arguments that technological knowledge, like scientific knowledge, can be accepted and not just used, and argues that there are no good prior reasons to suppose that technological knowledge would not be explicable using established scientonomic laws or patterns of change".c2 There seem to be "no prima facie reasons why changes in technological knowledge should not obey the same patterns of scientific change",c3 especially given that fact that "there is considerable overlap between science and technology, as when an instrument is used to acquire scientific data, and the trustworthiness of this data must be assessed".c4
Sciento-2018-0013 Epistemic Stances Towards Theories, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Scientificity 28 December 2018 Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept several questions concerning the definition of scientificity and the applicability of scientificity to other epistemic elements, such as methods and questions, as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. Open
Sciento-2018-0014 Mechanism of Theory Demarcation, Tautological Status of The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018) 28 December 2018 Accept the law of theory demarcation as a new scientonomic axiom. Also accept questions concerning indicators of scientificity as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry. Open The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2018-0013 becomes accepted.
Sciento-2018-0015 Compatibility, Compatibility of Mosaic Elements, Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) 28 December 2018 Accept the definition of compatibility, as the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also replace the zeroth law with the compatibility corollary. 3 June 2020 Accepted While the modification induced a few comments on the encyclopedia, it became accepted as a result of discussions that took place mostly offline. It was agreed that the modification "comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions" in the current zeroth which doesn't "say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of compatibility"c1 as it "is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility".c2 It was also noted that the proposed "definition of compatibility criteria... captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community".c3 It was also agreed that "the compatibility corollary follows from this definition".c4 c5 Finally, the community accepted that the definition and the corollary "recover the content of the Zeroth Law".c6
Sciento-2018-0016 Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements 28 December 2018 Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general. 1 October 2021 Accepted The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",c1 as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".c2 The reviewers agreed that "Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic",c3 since it "can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two".c4 It was also argued that "since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria... we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility".c5 Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.c6
Sciento-2018-0017 Compatibility Criteria 28 December 2018 Accept the new definition of compatibility criteria as criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible. 11 October 2020 Accepted The discussions concerning this modification took place mostly online, but primarily outside of this encyclopedia. There is a communal agreement that the modification is to be accepted as it fixes "an obvious drawback of [Barseghyan's] original definition".c1 Since "compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike"c2 it is agreed that we need a definition that is applicable to all epistemic elements, not merely theories. It was also noted that the new definition has the advantage of being "neutral to the the addition of new epistemic elements to the scientonomic ontology".c3
Sciento-2018-0018 Mechanism of Compatibility, Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) 28 December 2018 Accept the new dynamic law of compatibility which specifies how exactly two elements become to be considered compatible or incompatible within a mosaic. 9 October 2021 Accepted It was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"c1 as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"c2 and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".c3 The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".c4 While finding the law acceptable, one of the commentators raised an important question for future scientonomic research: do we even need a separate law of compatibility? Specifically they asked: "Is assessment for compatibility with other elements of the mosaic really conceptually distinct from the process of assessment for theory acceptance, which is already covered by other scientonomic laws?"c5 On this view, "the issue of the conceptual separability of theory compatibility and theory acceptance, and thus the need for two parallel laws, remains an open question that warrants further investigation".c6
Sciento-2018-0019 Theory Acceptance 28 December 2018 Accept the new definition of theory acceptance which makes explicit that accepted theories are a subset of scientific theories. Open
Sciento-2018-0020 Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Demarcation and Acceptance 28 December 2018 Accept the demarcation-acceptance synchronism theorem. Open The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2018-0014 and Sciento-2018-0019 all become accepted.
Sciento-2019-0001 Workflow - Goals of Peer Review 22 December 2019 Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability. 25 February 2023 Accepted The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. The modification was summarized by Paul Patton as essentially a ratification of current scientonomic practice. Jamie Shaw raised some concerns about how we don’t have adequately defined norms that must be satisfied for pursuitworthiness, which may make this modification trivial. Discussion about how peer-reviewers’ notions of pursuitworthiness may veer close to acceptability ensued. Nevertheless, the modification passed with 83% of the votes to accept (10/12).
Sciento-2019-0002 Workflow - Publishing Modification Comments 22 December 2019 Accept that 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. 25 February 2023 Accepted The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. Much of the discussions on this modification concerned the actual format of the “special commentary articles” and “special edited collections” suggested as options for publications would be. Paul Patton suggested micro-papers that could accompany each modification (one discussion paper per modification), whereas Izzy Friesen, Rebecca Muscant, and G. G. Shan were supportive of unified papers in a “compilation” format (one discussion paper per workshop). The possibility of doing both concurrently was floated by Spenser Borrie. Concerns about the commentary articles/edited collections waned once it was clarified that subheadings would be present in any compilation paper, ensuring that modifications and their authors would receive adequate attention. Establishing a clear schedule and framework for such a compilation was of great importance to all attendees at the meeting, and additionally, Hakob Barseghyan suggested a special numbering system for these publications to separate them from peer-reviewed articles. It was also agreed that the first author of such a paper would be whoever was in charge of taking notes, with all other commentators listed as co-authors. The modification was accepted almost unanimously.
Sciento-2019-0003 Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting Modifications 22 December 2019 Accept that the commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations. Also accept that, 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. This should be decided collegially by the author, the commentators, and the editors on a case-by-case basis. 25 February 2023 Accepted The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. It was noted that the idea is compatible with other consensus systems where one is allowed to modify the proposal in order to reach consensus. The modification sparked important discussion about our iterative process. Paul Patton highlighted a potential problem with our workflow where, by the time we are discussing acceptance, the paper has already been formatted and published. He raised a question if it might be more advisable to use a two-stage process, where a paper is first posted in some preliminary form and then, following the debate on acceptance, it is reformulated as needed and the final version is considered published. Hakob Barseghyan responded that there always has to be a chance of commenting on something published post factum. Instead of the two-step process, he suggested allowing small alterations to modifications after the publication and publishing the commentaries to modifications in a separate article (as the community just accepted with modification 2019-0002), while leaving the original article intact. Greg Rupik also suggested the potential for a special designation for a tweaked modification identifier (e.g. 2019-0003a instead of 2019-0003) to make it more apparent which modifications were reformulated. Barseghyan responded that the wiki is well-suited to make reformulations apparent (most specifically, in the Preamble and Verdict sections) without the need to multiply modifications. He also emphasized that this modification pertains to smaller reformulations and not to significant changes to the content, making some concerns about the modification less immediately relevant. Barseghyan also addressed the question posted prior to the workshop by Ameer Sarwar: when other authors cite a modification that has been altered, what exactly should they cite? Barseghyan suggested that, since both the original modification and the altered one will be published, one can cite both. The modification was accepted unanimously.
Sciento-2019-0004 22 December 2019 Accept that an annual book prize is to be offered for extensive participation on the encyclopedia. The winner(s) are to be decided by the encyclopedia editors. Open
Sciento-2019-0005 22 December 2019 Accept that star-ratings are to be introduced for commentators who comment on suggested modifications on the encyclopedia. 25 February 2023 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.
Sciento-2019-0006 Workflow - Handling Ripple Effects 22 December 2019 Accept that the encyclopedia editors are to be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. Also accept that 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. 25 February 2023 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.
Sciento-2019-0007 Workflow - Closure Mechanism 22 December 2019 Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period. Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted - a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be. 25 February 2023 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.
Sciento-2019-0008 Workflow - Closure Mechanism 22 December 2019 Accept that a countdown mechanism is to be introduced, where a modification is accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication. 18 October 2022 Not Accepted It has been agreed that the idea of accepting a modification by default after a fixed time period might have several negative consequences. First, it may lead to the automatic acceptance of an otherwise unacceptable modification that just happened to be suggested at a time when most researchers interested in the topic were exceptionally busy.c1 It was emphasized that if we were to allow for modifications to become accepted simply "because no one said anything" we would be giving "undue power to the mechanism of what gets accepted".c2 This might "allow some modifications to garner more discussion than others depending on when they are published and lead to an incorrect understanding of the Scientonomic community’s evaluation of a particular modification", so we might end up with a mosaic that is not representative of the communal views.c3 It was also agreed that acceptance by default fails to address the concern that some members of the community may be reluctant to object to a modification for a variety of reasons. It is unlikely that “having time limits, even if they are apparent and made known within our community, will incentivize explicit objection”.c4 It was suggested that "researchers may be even more reluctant to “impede the modification’s acceptance” now that it would be an automatic process”.c5 Finally, it was mentioned that "the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown".c6
Sciento-2019-0009 Implication 23 December 2019 Accept the definition of implication as a logical transition from one theory to another. Open
Sciento-2019-0010 Sufficient Reason, Reason, Support, Normative Inference 23 December 2019 Accept the new definitions of sufficient reason, reason, support, and normative inference. Open
Sciento-2019-0011 Sufficient Reason and Theory Acceptance 23 December 2019 Accept the sufficient reason theorem and its deduction from the definition of sufficient reason and the second law. Open
Sciento-2019-0012 24 December 2019 Accept that the phenomenological claims of classical physics are still accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective observable phenomena. Open
Sciento-2019-0013 Method Hierarchy, Existence of Method Hierarchy 24 December 2019 Accept the existence of method hierarchies and the new definition of method hierarchy as a set of methods where theories that satisfy the requirements of methods that are higher in the hierarchy are preferred to theories that satisfy the requirements of methods that are lower in the hierarchy. Also accept the question of conceptualizing method hierarchies. Open
Sciento-2019-0014 Epistemic Agent 26 December 2019 Accept the new definition of epistemic agent as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. 11 October 2020 Accepted The modification was characterized as "a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology" for despite all the talks of epistemic agents "the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear" for years,c1 for its "strict explication has been lacking".c2 It was agreed that the definition is an important starting point for our discussions concerning individual and communal agents.c3 c4 It was also noted that the definition is important for addressing the "the question of agency of epistemic tools"c5 and the question of "the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents".c6
Sciento-2019-0015 Subtypes of Epistemic Agent, Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent, Supertypes of Individual Epistemic Agent 26 December 2019 Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the question of applicability of the laws of scientific change to individuals as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry. 10 January 2022 Accepted It was agreed during seminar discussions that the "modification aims to codify our de facto communal stance towards the ontology of epistemic agents".c1 This is confirmed by the fact that several recent articles take this ontology of epistemic agents for granted (e.g., Barseghyan and Levesley (2021), Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)).45 Even as early as 2017, several of Loiselle's examples of authority delegation concern individual experts (see Loiselle (2017)).6
Sciento-2019-0016 Epistemic Tool 26 December 2019 Accept the definition of epistemic tool, stating that a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. Open
Sciento-2019-0017 Authority Delegation, Mutual Authority Delegation, One-sided Authority Delegation, Singular Authority Delegation, Multiple Authority Delegation, Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Associations of Community 26 December 2019 Accept the definitions of authority delegation, and its subtypes, that generalize the currently accepted definitions to apply to all epistemic agents, rather than only communities. 6 February 2023 Accepted The commentators found the modification uncontroversial.c1 c2 It was noted that the modification "merely attempts to capture what is already de facto accepted - namely, the idea that authority can be delegated by and to epistemic agents of all kinds (both communal and individual)" as indicated by the "fact that the canonical examples of authority delegation often involve individual experts (see, for example, Loiselle 2017)".c3 It was agreed that the modification "introduces a necessary rewording in the definitions of authority delegation and its species".c4
Sciento-2019-0018 Tool Reliance 26 December 2019 Accept that the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Also accept the definition of tool reliance, which states that an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. Open
Sciento-2021-0001 Epistemic Presupposition, Logical Presupposition, Existence of Epistemic Presupposition 1 August 2021 Accept the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition. 6 February 2023 Accepted It was emphasized that the "modification is appealing given the presence of questions as a basic class of epistemic element in our ontology and the need to reference their presuppositions in observational scientonomy alongside proposed laws concerning questions in theoretical scientonomy".c1 The commentators agreed that "an epistemic agent could plausibly accept all the epistemic presuppositions without necessarily accepting all the logical presuppositions".c2 They also also noted that "accepting separate definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition would improve the specificity of our communal knowledge - and perhaps our visualization capabilities".c3 Specifically, "there is clear value in distinguishing logical and epistemic presuppositions in scientonomic diagrams".c4 Finally, the commentators highlighted the importance of the distinction for the law of question acceptance.c5 c6
Sciento-2021-0002 Mechanism of Question Acceptance, Mechanism of Question Rejection 1 August 2021 Accept the law of question acceptance as a new scientonomic axiom, the question rejection theorem, and a number of questions for future research. 21 February 2024 Accepted Prior to the 2024 workshop, Carlin Henikoff left a comment on the encyclopedia affirming that the modification should be accepted, but also stating that it was unclear whether it should be accepted as an axiom, per se. During the 2024 workshop, it was clarified that in our taxonomy, if X follows from something else, it is a theorem, but if not, it is an axiom. At the time of the publication of Levesley and Barseghyan’s paper, Henikoff was engaged in conversations in the scientonomy community about whether the law of question acceptance could be deducible from other scientonomic theorems. This clarified the thrust of her comment; since the law hasn't been shown to follow from any other scientonomic theories, it can only be taken as an axiom. There were also concerns about the phrasing of the law. Specifically, Jamie Shaw highlighted that the acceptance of a question cannot be predicated upon the acceptance of all of its presuppositions, simply because a question can have an infinite number of presuppositions. However, the participants were reminded of the difference between epistemic presuppositions and logical presuppositions (proposed by Levesley and Barseghyan in the previously accepted modification Sciento-2021-0001). While a question can have an infinite number of logical presuppositions (i.e. these are “explosive”), the law explicitly talks about epistemic presuppositions, which are not explosive. The modification was accepted nearly unanimously by over two-thirds majority of votes. 17 out of 18 votes were for acceptance.
Sciento-2021-0003 Error, Existence of Error 1 August 2021 Accept the definition of error, stating that 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. 8 October 2021 Accepted It was agreed that the definition "succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method".c1 c2 The importance of the concept of error for the Tree of Knowledge project was also noted. Specifically, it was argued that "we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accepted in accordance with an agent’s employed method and those which were not" so that we can better understand the reasoning underlying individual transitions.c3 Finally, it was suggested that a further distinction between “instances of honest error and misconduct” might be worth pursuing.c4
Sciento-2021-0004 Mechanism of Error Rejection 1 August 2021 Accept that the handling of scientific error, as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with the theory rejection theorem. 8 October 2021 Accepted The commentators agreed that "the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem".c1 c2 c3 It was agreed that the rejection of a theory that was accepted erroneously can be "a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories".c4 c5 c6 One commentator expressed a common opinion when saying that "the authors are able to put to rest concerns about the handling of scientific error potentially contravening the theory rejection theorem".c7
Sciento-2021-0005 Existence of Element Decay, Existence of Theory Decay, Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon 1 August 2021 Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon. 21 February 2024 Not Accepted Prior to the 2024 scientonomy workshop, several comments were left on the encyclopedia expressing a range of opinions regarding accepting the modification. Carlin Henikoff expressed an issue with expecting scientonomers to be responsible for making existential claims regarding phenomena which lie beyond the scope of scientonomy, and highlighted the lack of clear-cut case studies in Oh’s paper, although she did not take issue with the classification of element decay as non-scientonomic or its potential usefulness in explicating mosaic dynamics. Other commenters who supported accepting the modification still identified that further observational work needed to be done on certain aspects of the modification. For example, Joshua Allen believed that more work needed to be done on Oh’s proposed list of necessary indicators, the acceptance of which was entwined with the rest of the modification.

During the discussion at the workshop, some participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. After brief discussion led by Paul Patton about non-scientonomic phenomena and whether we have a formal definition for them in scientonomy, Hakob Barseghyan highlighted that accepting that element decay exists and accepting that element decay is non-scientonomic was being coupled in the same modification. Thus, perhaps the modification should be split into two sub-modifications that could be individually voted on, which would also address Patton and Henikoff’s concerns. Then, Izzy Friesen suggested that the modification should in fact be superseded by three modification, as the original modification essentially consists of three suggestions:

  • accept the existence of element decay;
  • accept the indicators of element decay;
  • accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon.

After a brief discussion about the merits of splitting, the community voted on whether to split the modification two ways, three ways, or to keep it as is. The option to split the modification three ways reached a two-thirds majority.

Sciento-2021-0006 Subquestion, Core Question, Core Theory, Discipline, Delineating Theory, Discipline Acceptance, Subdiscipline, Associations of Discipline, Associations of Theory, Associations of Question, Existence of Discipline Acceptance, Existence of Delineating Theory, Associations of Delineating Theory, Existence of Core Theory, Existence of Core Question, Existence of Subdiscipline, Existence of Subquestion 1 August 2021 Accept new definitions of subquestion, core question, core theory, discipline, delineating theory, subdiscipline, and discipline acceptance. 21 February 2024 Accepted Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia indicating his support for accepting this modification and noted its potential to underpin further work on discipline dynamics. In fact, a significant amount of observational scientonomy work has been carried out in the past few years (including the paper on the rejection of alchemy by Friesen and Patton (2023),7 as well as some more recent papers) that presupposes the acceptance of these definitions, despite the fact that the modification containing them formally remains open. There was very little discussion about the modification, beyond raising points for the community to look forward to in the future, like a brief discussion between Jamie Shaw and Paul Patton about the need for more research on the difference between disciplines and disciplinary communities. The modification was accepted unanimously with 18 votes.
Sciento-2022-0001 Scientific Mosaic 28 February 2022 Accept a new model-theoretic definition of scientific mosaic, according to which, a scientific mosaic is a model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent. 21 February 2024 Accepted Nobody submitted opinions on this modification to the encyclopedia prior to the 2024 workshop. At the workshop, most of the discussion focused around the differences in wording between the earlier definition of scientific mosaic and the new one as formulated by Rawleigh. It was clarified that there is little difference in meaning between the definitions, but Rawleigh’s modification addressed the concern that the old language for describing a scientific mosaic was couched in terms of set theory, which Jamie Shaw pointed out would pose a problem for how we typically talk about mosaics (classifying mosaics by their number of elements is not particularly helpful for scientonomers). The new model-theoretic definition seemed more intuitive to some members of the community, even though neither definition commits to any syntactic view of theories. Some members of the community did not vote on the modification given their lack of experience with set theory, but overall the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 13 out of 15 votes were to accept.
Sciento-2022-0002 Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Norm Employment 28 February 2022 Accept the new law of norm employment that fixes some of the issues of the current law of method employment and makes it applicable to norms of all types. 21 February 2024 Accepted Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia with his opinion that the modification should be accepted given that the formulation seemed relatively future-proof: it would not have to change even if more elements are included into our ontology. Paul Patton and Cameron Scott raised some concerns about the differences between norm employment and norm acceptance, and about the derivability of norms from agents’ mosaics, given cases in the history of science where agents accept a norm that is derivable from their mosaic but do not act accordingly (that is, they fail to employ the norm). However, it was noted that this is a separate issue from what the modification aims to do: the law of norm employment does not describe what happens to norms that are already present in the mosaic, but merely describes how norms come to be part of the mosaic. Yet, the discrepancy in the community’s accepted definitions of norm acceptance (as a subtype of theory acceptance) and norm employment was highlighted as a pertinent issue for later focus. After this clarification, there were no further issues raised, and the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 14 out of 16 votes were for acceptance.
Sciento-2023-0001 27 December 2023 Accept the findings concerning the acceptance and rejection of the existence of high mass-to-light ratios, flat rotation curves, and dark matter by the Western astronomy community. Open
Sciento-2023-0002 Mechanism of Theory Rejection, Mechanism of Question Rejection, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Theories, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Normative Theories, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Questions, Mechanism of Normative Theory Rejection 28 December 2023 Accept new formulations of the first law for theories, norms, and questions that are in tune with the formulation of the first law. Also accept new formulations of the respective rejection theorems - theory rejection, norm rejection, and question rejection. Open
Sciento-2023-0003 Tautological Status of The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021), Tautological Status of Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) 28 December 2023 Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies. Open
Sciento-2023-0004 31 December 2023 Accept that noun-adjective pairs within the RSC can be indicative of communal theory acceptance. Open
Sciento-2023-0005 Epistemic Action, Existence of Epistemic Action 31 December 2023 Accept the definition of epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element. Open
Sciento-2023-0006 Subtypes of Epistemic Action, Global Epistemic Action, Existence of Global Epistemic Action, Supertypes of Global Epistemic Action, Local Epistemic Action, Existence of Local Epistemic Action, Supertypes of Local Epistemic Action 31 December 2023 Accept that epistemic actions can be local or global. Also accept the definition of global epistemic action as an epistemic action that is available to all epistemic agents trans-historically and universally and the definition of local epistemic action as an epistemic action that is not available trans-historically to all epistemic agents, but is specific to some time periods or some agents. Open
Sciento-2023-0007 Mechanism of Local Epistemic Action Availability, Local Action Availability 31 December 2023 Accept that the a local action A is said to be available to an epistemic agent iff that agent employs the norm “A is permissible/desirable”. Also accept the theorem of local action availability as a deductive consequence of this definition and the law of norm employment: a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility/desirability is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic. Open The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2023-0006 becomes accepted.
Sciento-2023-0008 31 December 2023 Accept the findings concerning the discipline dynamics of alchemy and its core questions in the Western European chymistry community. Open
Sciento-2024-0001 Existence of Element Decay, Existence of Theory Decay 21 February 2024 Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. 21 February 2024 Open This modification was one of the three introduced that superseded Oh’s original modification, given that members of the community wanted the option to vote separately on the three distinct modifications contained in the original proposed modification. The community found that, while there are intuitive reasons to accept element decay’s existence, the lack of observational evidence beyond Oh’s investigation of the episode of Cremonese violins brought many people pause. Rebecca Muscant noted that the risks of accepting the existence of a phenomenon prematurely overweigh the risks of keeping the question open, since showing the non-existence of a phenomenon is a much more arduous task. Deivide Oliveira suggested that, in spite of this risk, accepting the modification would allow for more instances of element decay to be identified. However, Landon See and Hakob Barseghyan pushed back, suggesting that the premature acceptance of the existence of element decay may in fact disencourage scholars from searching for other historical episodes involving element decay. They suggested that leaving the question open would be more conducive to future pursuit of the topic. It was also agreed that one clear-cut instance is necessary before the existence of element decay can be accepted. Concern about stakes more generally permeated the discussion. Although Jamie Shaw rightly identified that our community has safeguards against dogmatic practice, and is small enough that things do not slip through the cracks, concerns about premature acceptance persisted until the end of the discussion. Ultimately, then the community voted to keep the modification open by over a 2/3rds majority. 11 out of 15 votes supported keeping the modification open.
Sciento-2024-0002 21 February 2024 Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. Open
Sciento-2024-0003 Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon 21 February 2024 Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. Open The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2024-0001 becomes accepted.


References

  1. a b  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
  2. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob et al. (Eds.). (2022) Scientonomy: The Challenges of Constructing a Theory of Scientific Change. Vernon Press.
  3. ^  Palider, Kye et al. (2021) A Diagrammatic Notation for Visualizing Epistemic Entities and Relations. Scientonomy 4, 87-139. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37904.
  4. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. Scientonomy 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.
  5. ^  Machado-Marques, Sarah and Patton, Paul. (2021) Scientific Error and Error Handling. Scientonomy 4, 21-39. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37121.
  6. ^  Loiselle, Mirka. (2017) Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication. Scientonomy 1, 41-53. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28233.
  7. ^  Friesen, Izzy and Patton, Paul. (2023) Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy. Scientonomy 5, 93-110. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42268.