Hakob Barseghyan

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hakob Barseghyan (born 6 July 1979) is a Canadian-Armenian philosopher of science and scientonomist who laid the foundations of the general descriptive theory of scientific change.


Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested by Barseghyan:

  • Sciento-2017-0004: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. 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: Accept that the new second law is not a tautology. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 29 November 2017. 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: Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan and Paul Patton on 5 February 2017.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2018-0005: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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: Accept the definition of definition as a statement of the meaning of a term. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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: Accept the definition of norm employment. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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: Accept the new definition of scientific mosaic as a set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by the epistemic agent. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 17 May 2020. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan on 8 October 2018.2 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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: Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Maxim Mirkin on 28 December 2018.3 The modification was accepted on 1 September 2019. 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-2019-0001: Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The modification was accepted on 25 February 2023. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan, Jamie Shaw and Karen Yan on 22 December 2019.4 The modification was accepted on 25 February 2023. 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 Grace 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The modification was accepted on 25 February 2023. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2019-0005: Accept that star-ratings are to be introduced for commentators who comment on suggested modifications on the encyclopedia. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The discussion was closed on 25 February 2023 and the modification was 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The modification was accepted on 25 February 2023. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The modification was accepted on 25 February 2023. 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. 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: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Jamie Shaw on 22 December 2019.4 The discussion was closed on 18 October 2022 and the modification was 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-2019-0013: 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. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Mathew Mercuri on 24 December 2019.5 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
  • Sciento-2021-0001: Accept the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Nichole Levesley on 1 August 2021.6 The modification was accepted on 6 February 2023. 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: Accept the law of question acceptance as a new scientonomic axiom, the question rejection theorem, and a number of questions for future research. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Hakob Barseghyan and Nichole Levesley on 1 August 2021.6 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.

Theories

The following table contains all the theories formulated by Barseghyan:

TitleTypeFormulationFormulated In
The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveA method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.2015
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIn order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time.2015
Theory (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA set of propositions that attempt to describe something.2015
Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA theory is said to be accepted if it is taken as the best available description of its object.2015
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA set of all accepted theories and employed methods.2015
Methodology (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA set of explicitly formulated rules of theory assessment.2015
Method (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA set of requirements for employment in theory assessment.2015
The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveAn element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.2015
Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionAny change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.2015
Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveA method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.2015
Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIn order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one element. That is, scientific change is impossible in an empty mosaic.2015
Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTheory assessment is an assessment of a proposed modification of the mosaic by the method employed at the time.2015
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveA method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.2015
Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIf an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.2015
Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements.2015
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible.2015
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTransitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process.2015
Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveWhen two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two.2015
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveWhen a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible.2015
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveAll substantive methods are necessarily dynamic.2015
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveAll procedural methods are necessarily static.2015
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIn order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.2015
Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveA methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.2015
Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveSociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.2015
Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionCriteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.2015
Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionCriteria for determining whether two theories are compatible or incompatible.2015
Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionCriteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.2015
History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.2015
Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.2015
Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.2015
Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA method is said to be employed at time t if, at time t, theories become accepted only when their acceptance is permitted by the method.2015
Social Level (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionThe level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.2015
Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.2015
Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.2015
Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.2015
Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.2015
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe possible outcomes of theory assessment are accept, not accept, and inconclusive.2015
Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionThe level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.2015
Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionAn outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must be accepted.2015
Outcome Not Accept (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionAn outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must not be accepted.2015
Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionAn outcome of theory assessment which allows for the theory to be accepted but doesn't dictate so.2015
Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy 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.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeIt 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.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy 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.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.2015
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveWhen a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.2015
Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.2015
Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveScientonomy 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.2015
Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIf 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.2015
Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveScientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.2015
Response to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveScience 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.2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeScientonomy 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.2015
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)NormativeAt the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.2015
Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe 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.2015
Indicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIndicators 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.2015
Pursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptivePursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Methods - Employment (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe list of possible stances towards a method is limited to employment.2015
Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)DefinitionA descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change.2015
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveA theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.2015
Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTheory is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory.2015
Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveMethod is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of method.2015
Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveDescriptive Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of descriptive theory.2015
Epistemic Stance ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as an epistemic stance.2015
Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTheory Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance.2015
Theory Acceptance ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as theory acceptance.2015
Theory ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a theory.2015
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveBarseghyan's original second law is tautological.2015
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe stance of theory acceptance can be taken towards a theory.2015
Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTheory Use is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use.2015
Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveTheory Pursuit is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit.2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe stance of theory pursuit can be taken towards a theory.2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveThe stance of theory use can be taken towards a theory.2015
Theory (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Bearers of Mosaic - Communities (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveOnly a community can be a bearer of a scientific mosaic.2015
Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason22015
Descriptive Theory ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a descriptive theory.2015
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveAn accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.2015
The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveAn employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.2015
Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12015
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)NormativeScientonomic 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.
2016
Community ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a community.2016
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveIf 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.2017
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionA method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.2017
Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionThe theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.2017
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DefinitionIt is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.2017
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.2017
Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)NormativeA 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.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of a Single Contender (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender.2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of Two Contenders (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThere is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories.2017
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveThe second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.2017
Method (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA set of criteria for theory evaluation.2018
Methodology (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.2018
Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.2018
Definition (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA statement of the meaning of a term.2018
Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.2018
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionA set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent.2018
Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionPropositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.2018
Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionNot explicit.2018
Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionPropositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.2018
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)DefinitionNon-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.2018
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason12018
Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018)DescriptiveDefinition is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of definition.2018
Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018)DescriptiveMethod is a subtype of Normative Theory, i.e. normative theory is a supertype of method.2018
Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018)DescriptiveNorm Employment is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment.2018
Norm Employment ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as norm employment.2018
Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018)DescriptiveEpistemic Community is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community.2018
Epistemic Agent ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as an epistemic agent.2018
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories - Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)DescriptiveThe stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory.2018
Definition ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a definition.2018
Method Hierarchy (Mercuri-Barseghyan-2019)DefinitionA set of methods is said to constitute a hierarchy iff 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.2019
Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)NormativeThe goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.2019
Allow Modification Reformulations (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)NormativeThe 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.2019
Handling Ripple Effects - Editorial House Keeping (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)NormativeThe 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.2019
Closure Mechanism - Time Limit and Communal Vote (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)NormativeThe verdict on a suggested modification should be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period.2019
Closure Mechanism - Acceptance by Default (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)NormativeA modification should be accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.2019
Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019)DescriptiveA question can presuppose theories.2019
Method Hierarchy ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a method hierarchy.2019
Publishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-Yan-2019)NormativeThe 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.2019
Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)DefinitionA 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.2021
The Law of Question Acceptance (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)DescriptiveA question becomes accepted only if all of its epistemic presuppositions are accepted and it is accepted that the question is answerable.2021
Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)DescriptiveA question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become accepted.2021
Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)DefinitionA theory is said to be a logical presupposition of a question, iff the theory is logically entailed by any direct answer to the question.2021
Epistemic Presupposition ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as an epistemic presupposition.2021
Logical Presupposition ExistsDescriptiveThere is such a thing as a logical presupposition.2021
Question Pursuit (Barseghyan-2022)DefinitionAn epistemic agent S considers a question Q pursuitworthy, if and only if S accepts that it is worth finding a theory T that answers Q.2022

Questions

Here are all the questions formulated by Barseghyan:

Publications

Here are the works of Barseghyan included in the bibliographic records of this encyclopedia:

To add a bibliographic record by this author, enter the citation key below:

 

Citation keys normally include author names followed by the publication year in brackets. E.g. Aristotle (1984), Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (1935), Musgrave and Pigden (2016), Kuhn (1970a), Lakatos and Musgrave (Eds.) (1970). If a record with that citation key already exists, you will be sent to a form to edit that page.


References

  1. a b c  Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.
  2. a b c d e f  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2018) Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, 13-38. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31032.
  3. ^  Mirkin, Maxim. (2018) The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic. Scientonomy 2, 39-53. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29645.
  4. a b c d e f g h  Shaw, Jamie and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Problems and Prospects with the Scientonomic Workflow. Scientonomy 3, 1-14. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33509.
  5. ^  Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. Scientonomy 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.
  6. a b  Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. Scientonomy 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.

Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Hakob_Barseghyan&oldid=16034"