Hakob Barseghyan

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 is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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 modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• 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.

Theories

The following table contains all the theories formulated by Barseghyan:

Title	Type	Formulation	Formulated In
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	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.	2015
Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two.	2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Acceptance Use and Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The list of possible stances towards a theory includes acceptance, use, and pursuit.	2015
Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.	2015
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.	2015
Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A theory is said to be accepted if it is taken as the best available description of its object.	2015
Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.	2015
Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.	2015
Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.	2015
Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The two classes of elements that can undergo scientific change are accepted theories (as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something) and employed methods (as a set of criteria for theory evaluation).	2015
Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.	2015
The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	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.	2015
Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must be accepted.	2015
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible.	2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Methods - Employment (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The list of possible stances towards a method is limited to employment.	2015
Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.	2015
Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	A method ceases to be employed only when other methods incompatible with the method become employed.	2015
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A set of all accepted theories and employed methods.	2015
Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	Scientonomy ought to explain changes in a scientific mosaic, including changes from one accepted theory to the next and one employed method to the next.	2015
Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.	2015
Epistemic Agents - Communities (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Only a community can be the bearer of a scientific mosaic.	2015
Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.	2015
Underdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements.	2015
Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	Criteria for determining whether two theories are compatible or incompatible.	2015
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	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.	2015
Outcome Not Accept (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must not be accepted.	2015
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	All substantive methods are necessarily dynamic.	2015
Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A 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
Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one element. Scientific change is impossible in an empty mosaic.	2015
Methodology (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A set of explicitly formulated rules of theory assessment.	2015
Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	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.	2015
Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change.	2015
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The possible outcomes of theory assessment are accept, not accept, and inconclusive.	2015
Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.	2015
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Indicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.	2015
The Theory of Scientific Change	Descriptive	The laws of scientific change govern the process of changes in a scientific mosaic, i.e. transitions from one theory to the next and one method to the next. The theory of scientific change explains many different aspects of the process such as theory acceptance and method employment, scientific inertia and compatibility, splitting and merging of scientific mosaics, scientific underdeterminism, changeability of scientific methods, role of sociocultural factors, and more.	2015
Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern.	2015
Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	An outcome of theory assessment which allows for the theory to be accepted but doesn't dictate so.	2015
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	All procedural methods are necessarily static.	2015
Social Level (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.	2015
Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Theory assessment is an assessment of a proposed modification of the mosaic by the method employed at the time.	2015
Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.	2015
Method (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A set of requirements for employment in theory assessment.	2015
The Second Law is a Tautology (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	The second law is a tautology.	2015
Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.	2015
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process.	2015
Pursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.	2015
History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.	2015
The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	2015
Theory (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A set of propositions that attempt to describe something.	2015
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment.	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)	Normative	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.	2015
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.	2015
Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.	2015
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.	2015
Response to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	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.	2015
Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)	Definition	Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.	2015
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Normative	Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by: documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia; scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats; publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions; evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.	2016
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	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.	2017
Employed Method (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	A method is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of the community.	2017
Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	2017
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.	2017
Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.	2017
The Second Law is Not a Tautology (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	The second law is not a tautology.	2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of a Single Contender (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	There is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender.	2017
Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)	Normative	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.	2017
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes from Acceptance or Unacceptance of Two Contenders (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Descriptive	There is a series of inferences that can be made from the acceptance or unacceptance of two contender theories.	2017
Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Definition	The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	2017
Methodology (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.	2018
Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.	2018
Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.	2018
Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	Not explicit.	2018
Definition (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A statement of the meaning of a term.	2018
Epistemic Elements - Questions and Theories (Barseghyan-2018)	Descriptive	The two basic classes of elements that can undergo scientific change are questions and theories, where each theory is an attempt to answer a certain question, and method is a subtype of normative theory.	2018
Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.	2018
Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.	2018
Epistemic Stances Towards Norms - Employment (Barseghyan-2018)	Descriptive	In addition to stances that can be taken towards theories of all types, norms can in principle be employed by epistemic agents.	2018
Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.	2018
Method (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A set of criteria for theory evaluation.	2018
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018)	Definition	A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent.	2018
Epistemic Stances Towards Methods - None (Barseghyan-2018)	Descriptive	There are no additional epistemic stances that can be taken exclusively towards methods.	2018
Closure Mechanism - Time Limit and Communal Vote (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	The verdict on a suggested modification should be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period.	2019
Method Hierarchies Exist (Mercuri-Barseghyan-2019)	Descriptive	There are method hierarchies in the actual process of scientific change.	2019
Closure Mechanism - Acceptance by Default (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	A modification should be accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.	2019
Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.	2019
Publishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	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.	2019
Allow Modification Reformulations (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	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.	2019
Handling Ripple Effects - Editorial House Keeping (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	Normative	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.	2019
Method Hierarchy (Mercuri-Barseghyan-2019)	Definition	A 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

Questions

Here are all the questions formulated by Barseghyan:

• Acceptance Criteria: What is acceptance criteria? How should it be defined?
• Accepted Methodology and Theory Pursuit: Is there any connection between an accepted methodology and the pursuit of a theory?
• Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change: To which mosaics do the laws of scientific change apply? Do they apply only to scientific communities, to all epistemic communities, or all communities whatsoever (including non-epistemic communities)? Do these patterns emerge and exist in communities who gather together to study the world?
• Application of Scientonomy to Philosophy of Science: How can the findings of scientonomy be applied to answer the traditional questions of the philosophy of science?
• Assessment of Scientonomy: How ought a scientonomic theory be assessed? What conditions ought it satisfy in order to become accepted? What kinds of facts ought to be relevant for assessing a scientonomic theory?
• Assessment of Scientonomy - Method: What method ought to be employed to assess a scientonomic theory?
• Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts: What classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?
• Changeability of the Scientific Mosaic: Under what circumstances does scientific change become impossible?
• Compatibility Criteria: What is compatibility criteria? How should it be defined?
• Conceptualizing Method Hierarchies: Should we conceive of a method hierarchy as being composed of individual employed methods/requirements, or should we think of it as constituting one composite method with a system of if-s and else-s, and-s and or-s
• Definition: What is definition? How should it be defined?
• Delegation of Authority to Artifacts: Can there be delegation of authority to tools, instruments, other material objects, or to computer software?
• Delegation of Authority to Individuals: Can there be delegation of authority to individuals?
• Delegation of Authority to Past Communities: Is it possible for a community to delegate authority to a community that no longer exists? Can a community delegate authority to a past expert?
• Demarcation Criteria: What is demarcation criteria? How should it be defined?
• Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific Change: Is the process of scientific change a strictly deterministic process? Will two unconnected communities experience a similar historical series of changes in their individual mosaics?
• Employed Method: What is employed method? How should it be defined?
• Epistemic Agents: Who can be a bearer of a mosaic? Can a community be a bearer of a mosaic? Can an individual be a bearer of a mosaic? Can an instrument be a bearer of a mosaic?
• Epistemic Elements: What are the fundamental epistemic elements that undergo scientific change?
• Epistemic Stances: What are the epistemic stances that can be taken by epistemic agents towards different epistemic elements?
• Epistemic Stances Towards Methods: What are the specific epistemic stances that can be taken by epistemic agents exclusively towards methods?
• Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories: What are the specific epistemic stances that can in principle be taken by an epistemic agent towards normative theories?
• Epistemic Stances Towards Theories: What epistemic stances can be taken towards a theory?
• Existence of Method Hierarchies: Do method hierarchies exist?
• Explicable-Implicit: What is explicable-implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
• Explicit: What is explicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
• History of Scientific Change: What is history of scientific change? How should it be defined?
• Implicit: What is implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?
• Indicators of Method Employment: What historical facts serve as indicators that a method of theory appraisal is employed by a scientific community?
• Indicators of Theory Acceptance: What are the historical indicators of theory acceptance? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a theory was indeed accepted by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?
• Individual Level: What is individual level? How should it be defined?
• Inexplicable: What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?
• Mechanism of Compatibility: Under what conditions can two elements coexist in the same mosaic?
• Mechanism of Method Employment: How do methods become employed by a community in theory assessment?
• Mechanism of Method Rejection: When does an employed method become rejected?
• Mechanism of Mosaic Split: What 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?
• Mechanism of Scientific Change: What is the actual mechanism of scientific change? How do changes in a scientific mosaic take place? What governs these changes?
• Mechanism of Scientific Inertia: How does a scientific mosaic preserve itself through time? What makes the elements of a mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?
• Mechanism of Theory Acceptance: How do theories become accepted into a mosaic?
• Mechanism of Theory Pursuit: What is the mechanism of theory pursuit, if any? How do theories become pursued by communities? Is pursuit purely determined by sociocultural factors or is there an epistemic element to it as well?
• Mechanism of Theory Rejection: How do theories become rejected? What is the mechanism of theory rejection?
• Method: What is method? How should it be defined?
• Method Hierarchy: What is method hierarchy? How should it be defined?
• Methodology: What is methodology? How should it be defined?
• Mosaic Merge: What is mosaic merge? How should it be defined?
• Mosaic Split: What is mosaic split? How should it be defined?
• Nature of Appraisal: What is the nature of theory appraisal? Does actual theory assessment concern an individual theory taken in isolation from other theories?
• Necessary Elements: How can the process of scientific change get started? What are the minimum necessary requirements for science?
• Necessary Logic: What is the minimum logic required for scientific change to occur?
• Necessary Methods: Are there methods that are necessarily part of any mosaic?
• Necessary Theories: Are there theories that are necessarily part of any mosaic?
• Norm Employment: What is norm employment? How should it be defined?
• Normative Effects of Scientonomy: What are the normative effects of scientonomy on the process of scientific change?
• Ontology of Scientific Change: What is the ontology of scientific change? What are the fundamental entities, processes, and relations of scientific change?
• Outcome Accept: How should the theory assessment outcome accept be defined?
• Outcome Inconclusive: How should the theory assessment outcome inconclusive be defined?
• Outcome Not Accept: How should the theory assessment outcome not accept be defined?
• Outcome Not Satisfied: How should the theory assessment outcome not satisfied be defined?
• Outcome Satisfied: How should the theory assessment outcome satisfied be defined?
• Philosophy of Science - Demarcation: Can scientonomy as a descriptive empirical science of science be applied to solve the problem of demarcation?
• Philosophy of Science - Relativism: Can scientonomy as a descriptive empirical science of science be applied to solve the problem of scientific progress?
• Possibility of Scientonomy: How is scientonomy possible?
• Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track Record: How is scientonomy possible given the bad track record of previous attempts to create a general theory of scientific change?
• Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method: How can there be scientonomy if the methods of science are changeable?
• Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent: How can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?
• Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction: How is scientonomy possible if science is a social construction?
• Procedural Method: What is procedural method? How should it be defined?
• Pursuit and Acceptance: What is the relationship between the process of theory acceptance and that of theory pursuit?
• Reducibility of Definitions: Are definitions a distinct subtype of theory, or are they somehow reducible to descriptive theories and/or normative theories?
• Role of Definitions in Scientific Change: Do definitions play any distinct role in the process of scientific change, or do they only exhibit the exact same patterns as descriptive and normative theories?
• Role of Methodology in Scientific Change: What role do methodologies play in scientific change? Are methodologies capable of affecting employed methods?
• Role of Practical Considerations in Scientific Change: What is the role of practical considerations such as financial constraints or limitations of manpower in the process of scientific change?
• Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment: What is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of method employment?
• Role of Sociocultural Factors in Mosaic Split: What role do sociocultural factors play in a mosaic split?
• Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change: What is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of scientific change?
• Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance: What is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of theory acceptance?
• Scientific Change: What is scientific change? How should it be defined?
• Scientific Mosaic: What is scientific mosaic? How should it be defined?
• Scientonomic Workflow: How should changes in the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge be introduced? What are the steps and procedures of the scientonomic workflow?
• Scientonomy: What is scientonomy? How should it be defined?
• Scope of Scientonomy: What types of phenomena should a scientonomic theory account for?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit: How 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?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal: Ought the process of scientific change be viewed from the perspective of theory construction or that of theory appraisal?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative: Ought a scientonomic theory be descriptive or normative?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit: Ought 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?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social: Ought a scientonomic theory account for changes in the mosaics of individual scientists, the mosaics of communities, or both?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Mosaic Formation: Should Scientonomy tackle the question of the initial formation of a scientific mosaic?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale: For 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?
• Scope of Scientonomy - Tracing Implicit and Explicit: Should observational scientonomy trace when a certain stance towards an epistemic element was taken explicitly or implicitly?
• Social Level: What is social level? How should it be defined?
• Static vs. Dynamic Methods: Are there any methods which are immune to change?
• Status of Disciplinary Boundaries: How do disciplinary boundaries exist within the scientific mosaic?
• Status of Impossible Abstract Requirements: What happens in situations where an abstract requirement can't be met? What do we do when we would like to keep certain theories but those theories are left in limbo?
• Status of Method and Methodology: Can Method and Methodology be defined such that it doesn't rely on the implicit-explicit distinction?
• Status of Models: What is the status of models in the mosaic?
• Status of Questions: What is the status of questions (problems, topics) in the ontology of epistemic elements?
• Status of Reasons: Do epistemic communities accept reasons during theory acceptance? If they do, what is the nature of the relationship between reasons and scientific change? Is it possible for a theory to remain accepted while the original reason for its acceptance is replaced by another?
• Substantive Method: What is substantive method? How should it be defined?
• Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment: Which factors influence the process of method employment? Do new methods become accepted simultaneously with the acceptance of a theory?
• Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Rejection: When a method is rejected, must it be the case that a theory has also been rejected?
• The Necessity of Intercommunication for Community: If two independent communities undergo similar changes which result in identical mosaics, are these communities still considered as distinct, or are they a single community?
• The Status of Holism and Ripple Effect: Is it the case that changes in one of the elements of a mosaic can have a "ripple effect" on the rest of the mosaic?
• Theory: What is theory? How should it be defined?
• Theory Acceptance: What does it mean to say that a theory is accepted? How should theory acceptance be defined?
• Theory Assessment Outcomes: What 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?
• Theory Displacement: Is it conceivable that, following the rejection of a method, that any theories which satisfied its requirements also would become rejected, seeing as how the reasons for belief in them no longer hold (in the eyes of the community)?
• Theory Pursuit: What does it mean to say that a theory is pursued? How should theory pursuit be defined?
• Theory Use: What does it mean to say that a theory is used? How should theory use be defined?
• Theory vs. Method Compatibility: What is the relationship between the Compatibility Criteria for theories and for methods within the same Mosaic?
• Workflow - Closure Mechanism: How should verdicts on suggested modifications be achieved? If modifications are accepted as a result of a communal consensus, then what constitutes such a consensus?
• Workflow - Goals of Peer Review: Should peer reviewers evaluate a submitted paper for the pursuitworthiness or acceptability of the content of the paper?
• Workflow - Publishing Modification Comments: Should the discussions concerning a suggested modification be published? If so, when and how should they be published?
• Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting Modifications: Are the commentators of suggested modifications allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations?

Publications

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

• Barseghyan (2015): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
• Barseghyan (2018): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2018) Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, 13-38. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31032.
• Barseghyan (2021a): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2021) Feyerabend’s General Theory of Scientific Change. In Bschir and Shaw (Eds.) (2021), 57-71.
• Barseghyan and Mirkin (2019): Barseghyan, Hakob and Mirkin, Maxim. (2019) The Role of Technological Knowledge in Scientific Change. In Héder and Nádasi (Eds.) (2019), 5-17.
• Barseghyan and Shaw (2017): Barseghyan, Hakob and Shaw, Jamie. (2017) How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change? Philosophies 2 (4), 24. Retrieved from http://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/2/4/24.
• Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019): 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.
• Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017): 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.
• Shaw and Barseghyan (2019): 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.

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.