Existence of Element Decay
Does element decay exist?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Sanghoon Oh in 2021. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. There are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Element Decay in Scientonomy.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record of the Question
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 August 2021 | The question of Existence of Element Decay became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Element Decay. This is when the claim of the existence of element decay has been suggested, thus introducing the term itself into scientonomic vocabulary. | Yes |
All Direct Answers
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Element Decay Exists | There is such a thing as element decay. | 2021 |
Accepted Direct Answers
Suggested Modifications
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Date Assessed | Verdict | Verdict Rationale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2021-0005 | Scientonomy | 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:
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-2024-0001 | Scientonomy | 21 February 2024 | Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. | 21 February 2024 | Open | 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. |
Current View
In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Element Decay.