Existence of Accidental Group

Does an accidental group exist?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Nicholas Overgaard in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. The following claim concerning the existence of Accidental Group is currently accepted in Scientonomy:

• There is such a thing as an accidental group.
  

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record of the Question

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

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	19 May 2017	The question of Existence of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Accidental Group. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.	Yes

All Direct Answers

The following answers have been added to this encyclopedia:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Accidental Group Exists	There is such a thing as an accidental group.	2017

To add the negative answer to the question, click here.

Accepted Direct Answers

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

Community	Theory	Formulation	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Accidental Group Exists	There is such a thing as an accidental group.	2 February 2018

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2017-0012	Scientonomy	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

Current View

In Scientonomy, the following claim concerning the existence of Accidental Group is currently accepted:

• There is such a thing as an accidental group.
  

Accidental Group Exists states: "There is such a thing as an accidental group."

Overgaard differentiates between accidental groups and proper communities.