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 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:
Title | Type | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|---|
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 |
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 |
Theory (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A set of propositions that attempt to describe something. | 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 |
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A set of all accepted theories and employed methods. | 2015 |
Methodology (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A set of explicitly formulated rules of theory assessment. | 2015 |
Method (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A set of requirements for employment in theory assessment. | 2015 |
The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. | 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 |
Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed. | 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. That is, scientific change is impossible in an empty mosaic. | 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. | 2015 |
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | All substantive methods are necessarily dynamic. | 2015 |
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | All procedural methods are necessarily static. | 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 |
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 |
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 |
Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific. | 2015 |
Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | Criteria for determining whether two theories are compatible or incompatible. | 2015 |
Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable. | 2015 |
History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic. | 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 Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development. | 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 |
Social Level (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. | 2015 |
Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics. | 2015 |
Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition. | 2015 |
Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions. | 2015 |
Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic. | 2015 |
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | The possible outcomes of theory assessment are accept, not accept, and inconclusive. | 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 |
Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must be accepted. | 2015 |
Outcome Not Accept (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | An outcome of theory assessment which prescribes that the theory must not be accepted. | 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 |
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 - 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities. | 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Pursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance. | 2015 |
Epistemic Stances Towards Methods - Employment (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | The list of possible stances towards a method is limited to employment. | 2015 |
Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015) | Definition | A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change. | 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 Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Theory 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) | Descriptive | Method 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) | Descriptive | Descriptive Theory is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of descriptive theory. | 2015 |
Epistemic Stance Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as an epistemic stance. | 2015 |
Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Theory Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance. | 2015 |
Theory Acceptance Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as theory acceptance. | 2015 |
Theory Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a theory. | 2015 |
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Barseghyan's original second law is tautological. | 2015 |
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | The stance of theory acceptance can be taken towards a theory. | 2015 |
Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Theory 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) | Descriptive | Theory 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) | Descriptive | The stance of theory pursuit can be taken towards a theory. | 2015 |
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | The stance of theory use can be taken towards a theory. | 2015 |
Theory (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Bearers of Mosaic - Communities (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | Only a community can be a bearer of a scientific mosaic. | 2015 |
Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason2 | 2015 | ||
Descriptive Theory Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a descriptive theory. | 2015 |
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories. | 2015 |
The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) | Descriptive | An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods. | 2015 |
Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2015 | ||
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016) | Normative | Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
| 2016 |
Community Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a community. | 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 Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | Definition | The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time. | 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 |
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 |
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | Descriptive | The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive. | 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 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 |
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 |
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | Descriptive | The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological. | 2017 |
Method (Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | A set of criteria for theory evaluation. | 2018 |
Methodology (Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. | 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 |
Definition (Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | A statement of the meaning of a term. | 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 |
Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent. | 2018 |
Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent. | 2018 |
Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | Not explicit. | 2018 |
Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018) | Definition | Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent. | 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 |
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Reason1 | 2018 | ||
Definition Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2018) | Descriptive | Definition is a subtype of Theory, i.e. theory is a supertype of definition. | 2018 |
Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018) | Descriptive | Method 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) | Descriptive | Norm Employment is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment. | 2018 |
Norm Employment Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as norm employment. | 2018 |
Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018) | Descriptive | Epistemic Community is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community. | 2018 |
Epistemic Agent Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as an epistemic agent. | 2018 |
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories - Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018) | Descriptive | The stance of norm employment can be taken towards a normative theory. | 2018 |
Definition Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a definition. | 2018 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Question Can Presuppose Theories (Barseghyan-Levesley-2019) | Descriptive | A question can presuppose theories. | 2019 |
Method Hierarchy Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a method hierarchy. | 2019 |
Publishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-Yan-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 |
Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) | Definition | A theory is said to be an epistemic presupposition of a question for some agent, iff the agent accepts that accepting any direct answer to the question will necessitate accepting the theory. | 2021 |
The Law of Question Acceptance (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) | Descriptive | A 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) | Descriptive | A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become accepted. | 2021 |
Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) | Definition | A theory is said to be a logical presupposition of a question, iff the theory is logically entailed by any direct answer to the question. | 2021 |
Epistemic Presupposition Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as an epistemic presupposition. | 2021 |
Logical Presupposition Exists | Descriptive | There is such a thing as a logical presupposition. | 2021 |
Question Pursuit (Barseghyan-2022) | Definition | An 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:
- 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?
- Associations of Acceptance Criteria: How is the class of acceptance criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between acceptance criterias, as well as between an acceptance criteria and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Compatibility Criteria: How is the class of compatibility criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between compatibility criterias, as well as between a compatibility criteria and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Definition: How is the class of definition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between definitions, as well as between a definition and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Demarcation Criteria: How is the class of demarcation criteria associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between demarcation criterias, as well as between a demarcation criteria and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Descriptive Theory: How is the class of descriptive theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between descriptive theories, as well as between a descriptive theory and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Discipline: How is the class of discipline associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between disciplines, as well as between a discipline and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Epistemic Agent: How is the class of epistemic agent associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic agents, as well as between an epistemic agent and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Epistemic Element: How is the class of epistemic element associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic elements, as well as between an epistemic element and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Epistemic Presupposition: How is the class of epistemic presupposition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic presuppositions, as well as between an epistemic presupposition and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Epistemic Stance: How is the class of epistemic stance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic stances, as well as between an epistemic stance and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Implicit: How is the class of implicit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between implicits, as well as between an implicit and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Logical Presupposition: How is the class of logical presupposition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between logical presuppositions, as well as between a logical presupposition and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Method: How is the class of method associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between methods, as well as between a method and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Method Hierarchy: How is the class of method hierarchy associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between method hierarchies, as well as between a method hierarchy and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Model: How is the class of model associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between models, as well as between a model and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Mosaic Merge: How is the class of mosaic merge associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between mosaic merges, as well as between a mosaic merge and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Mosaic Split: How is the class of mosaic split associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between mosaic splits, as well as between a mosaic split and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Norm Employment: How is the class of norm employment associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of norm employment, as well as between norm employment and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Scientific Mosaic: How is the class of scientific mosaic associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between scientific mosaics, as well as between a scientific mosaic and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Theory: How is the class of theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between theories, as well as between a theory and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Theory Acceptance: How is the class of theory acceptance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of theory acceptance, as well as between theory acceptance and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Theory Pursuit: How is the class of theory pursuit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between theory pursuits, as well as between a theory pursuit and instances of other classes?
- Associations of Theory Use: How is the class of theory use associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of theory use, as well as between theory use and instances of other classes?
- Bearers of Mosaic: 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?
- 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?
- Descriptive Theory: What is descriptive theory? 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?
- Discipline: What is discipline? How should it be defined?
- Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria: What other classes is the class of acceptance criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with acceptance criteria?
- Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria: What other classes is the class of compatibility criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with compatibility criteria?
- Disjointness of Definition: What other classes is the class of definition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with definition?
- Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria: What other classes is the class of demarcation criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with demarcation criteria?
- Disjointness of Descriptive Theory: What other classes is the class of descriptive theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with descriptive theory?
- Disjointness of Discipline: What other classes is the class of discipline disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with discipline?
- Disjointness of Epistemic Agent: What other classes is the class of epistemic agent disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic agent?
- Disjointness of Epistemic Element: What other classes is the class of epistemic element disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic element?
- Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition: What other classes is the class of epistemic presupposition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic presupposition?
- Disjointness of Epistemic Stance: What other classes is the class of epistemic stance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic stance?
- Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit: What other classes is the class of explicable-implicit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with explicable-implicit?
- Disjointness of Logical Presupposition: What other classes is the class of logical presupposition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with logical presupposition?
- Disjointness of Method: What other classes is the class of method disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with method?
- Disjointness of Method Hierarchy: What other classes is the class of method hierarchy disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with method hierarchy?
- Disjointness of Methodology: What other classes is the class of methodology disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with methodology?
- Disjointness of Model: What other classes is the class of model disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with model?
- Disjointness of Mosaic Merge: What other classes is the class of mosaic merge disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with mosaic merge?
- Disjointness of Mosaic Split: What other classes is the class of mosaic split disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with mosaic split?
- Disjointness of Norm Employment: What other classes is the class of norm employment disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with norm employment?
- Disjointness of Outcome Accept: What other classes is the class of outcome accept disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with outcome accept?
- Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic: What other classes is the class of scientific mosaic disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with scientific mosaic?
- Disjointness of Theory: What other classes is the class of theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory?
- Disjointness of Theory Acceptance: What other classes is the class of theory acceptance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory acceptance?
- Disjointness of Theory Pursuit: What other classes is the class of theory pursuit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory pursuit?
- Disjointness of Theory Use: What other classes is the class of theory use disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory use?
- Employed Method: What is employed method? How should it be defined?
- Epistemic Agent: What is epistemic agent? How should it be defined?
- Epistemic Element: What is epistemic element? How should it be defined?
- Epistemic Presupposition: What is epistemic presupposition? How should it be defined?
- Epistemic Stance: What is epistemic stance? How should it be defined?
- Epistemic Stances Towards Definitions: What types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards definitions?
- Epistemic Stances Towards Descriptive Theories: What types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards descriptive theories?
- Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements: What types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards epistemic elements?
- Epistemic Stances Towards Theories: What types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards theories?
- Existence of Acceptance Criteria: Does an acceptance criteria exist?
- Existence of Compatibility Criteria: Does a compatibility criteria exist?
- Existence of Definition: Does a definition exist?
- Existence of Demarcation Criteria: Does a demarcation criteria exist?
- Existence of Descriptive Theory: Does a descriptive theory exist?
- Existence of Discipline: Does a discipline exist?
- Existence of Epistemic Agent: Does an epistemic agent exist?
- Existence of Epistemic Element: Does an epistemic element exist?
- Existence of Epistemic Presupposition: Does an epistemic presupposition exist?
- Existence of Epistemic Stance: Does an epistemic stance exist?
- Existence of Logical Presupposition: Does a logical presupposition exist?
- Existence of Method: Does a method exist?
- Existence of Method Hierarchies: Do method hierarchies exist?
- Existence of Method Hierarchy: Does a method hierarchy exist?
- Existence of Model: Does a model exist?
- Existence of Mosaic Merge: Does a mosaic merge exist?
- Existence of Mosaic Split: Does a mosaic split exist?
- Existence of Norm Employment: Does norm employment exist?
- Existence of Scientific Mosaic: Does a scientific mosaic exist?
- Existence of Theory: Does a theory exist?
- Existence of Theory Acceptance: Does theory acceptance exist?
- Existence of Theory Pursuit: Does a theory pursuit exist?
- Existence of Theory Use: Does theory use 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 kind of historical markers could be taken as indicators that a method was employed by an agent at a given time?
- Indicators of Theory Acceptance: What types of historical markers can be taken as indicative that a theory was accepted by an agent at a given time?
- Individual Level: What is individual level? How should it be defined?
- Inexplicable: What is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?
- Logical Presupposition: What is logical presupposition? 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 an epistemic agent?
- 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 Question Rejection: What is the mechanism of question rejection? How do questions become rejected by epistemic agents?
- Mechanism of Scientific Change: What is the mechanism of scientific change? How do epistemic agents take stances towards towards epistemic elements? How do changes in a scientific mosaic take place?
- Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic Elements: What makes the epistemic elements of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?
- Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Methods: What makes the methods of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?
- Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Theories: What makes the theories of an agent's 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?
- Model: What is model? 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:
- Necessary Epistemic Elements: Are there epistemic elements that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What epistemic elements, if any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?
- Necessary Logic: What minimal set of inference rules (i.e. logic) is required for scientific change to occur?
- Necessary Methods: Are there methods that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What methods, if any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?
- 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?
- Question Pursuit: What is question pursuit? How should it be defined?
- Reducibility of Definitions: Are definitions somehow reducible to other epistemic elements, such as descriptive 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 Employed Methods in Question Acceptance: Is the process of question acceptance affected by employed methods?
- 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 Question Acceptance: what is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of question acceptance?
- 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 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 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?
- Subtypes of Acceptance Criteria: What are the subtypes of an acceptance criteria?
- Subtypes of Compatibility Criteria: What are the subtypes of a compatibility criteria?
- Subtypes of Definition: What are the subtypes of a definition?
- Subtypes of Demarcation Criteria: What are the subtypes of a demarcation criteria?
- Subtypes of Descriptive Theory: What are the subtypes of a descriptive theory?
- Subtypes of Discipline: What are the subtypes of a discipline?
- Subtypes of Epistemic Agent: What are the subtypes of an epistemic agent?
- Subtypes of Epistemic Element: What are the subtypes of an epistemic element?
- Subtypes of Epistemic Presupposition: What are the subtypes of an epistemic presupposition?
- Subtypes of Epistemic Stance: What are the subtypes of an epistemic stance?
- Subtypes of Logical Presupposition: What are the subtypes of a logical presupposition?
- Subtypes of Method: What are the subtypes of a method?
- Subtypes of Method Hierarchy: What are the subtypes of a method hierarchy?
- Subtypes of Model: What are the subtypes of a model?
- Subtypes of Mosaic Merge: What are the subtypes of a mosaic merge?
- Subtypes of Mosaic Split: What are the subtypes of a mosaic split?
- Subtypes of Norm Employment: What are the subtypes of norm employment?
- Subtypes of Outcome Inconclusive: What are the subtypes of an outcome inconclusive?
- Subtypes of Scientific Mosaic: What are the subtypes of a scientific mosaic?
- Subtypes of Theory: What are the subtypes of a theory?
- Subtypes of Theory Acceptance: What are the subtypes of theory acceptance?
- Subtypes of Theory Pursuit: What are the subtypes of a theory pursuit?
- Subtypes of Theory Use: What are the subtypes of theory use?
- Supertypes of Acceptance Criteria: What are the supertypes of an acceptance criteria?
- Supertypes of Compatibility Criteria: What are the supertypes of a compatibility criteria?
- Supertypes of Definition: What are the supertypes of a definition?
- Supertypes of Demarcation Criteria: What are the supertypes of a demarcation criteria?
- Supertypes of Descriptive Theory: What are the supertypes of a descriptive theory?
- Supertypes of Discipline: What are the supertypes of a discipline?
- Supertypes of Epistemic Agent: What are the supertypes of an epistemic agent?
- Supertypes of Epistemic Element: What are the supertypes of an epistemic element?
- Supertypes of Epistemic Presupposition: What are the supertypes of an epistemic presupposition?
- Supertypes of Epistemic Stance: What are the supertypes of an epistemic stance?
- Supertypes of Explicit: What are the supertypes of an explicit?
- Supertypes of Implicit: What are the supertypes of an implicit?
- Supertypes of Logical Presupposition: What are the supertypes of a logical presupposition?
- Supertypes of Method: What are the supertypes of a method?
- Supertypes of Method Hierarchy: What are the supertypes of a method hierarchy?
- Supertypes of Model: What are the supertypes of a model?
- Supertypes of Mosaic Merge: What are the supertypes of a mosaic merge?
- Supertypes of Mosaic Split: What are the supertypes of a mosaic split?
- Supertypes of Norm Employment: What are the supertypes of norm employment?
- Supertypes of Outcome Accept: What are the supertypes of an outcome accept?
- Supertypes of Scientific Mosaic: What are the supertypes of a scientific mosaic?
- Supertypes of Theory: What are the supertypes of a theory?
- Supertypes of Theory Acceptance: What are the supertypes of theory acceptance?
- Supertypes of Theory Pursuit: What are the supertypes of a theory pursuit?
- Supertypes of Theory Use: What are the supertypes of theory use?
- 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?
- Tautological Status of The First Law (Barseghyan-2015): Is the first law suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?
- Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): Is the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?
- 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:
- Rupik et al. (2022): Rupik, Gregory et al. (2022) Introduction. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), xi-xvi.
- Barseghyan (2022a): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2022) Selection, Presentism, and Pluralist History. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 92, 60-70.
- Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022): Barseghyan, Hakob et al. (Eds.). (2022) Scientonomy: The Challenges of Constructing a Theory of Scientific Change. Vernon Press.
- Barseghyan (2022b): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2022) Question Pursuit as an Epistemic Stance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 94, 112-120.
- Barseghyan and Shaw (2022): Barseghyan, Hakob and Shaw, Jamie. (2022) Integrating HPS: What’s in it for a Philosopher of Science? In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 41-65.
- Barseghyan and Levesley (2021): Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. Scientonomy 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.
- Barseghyan (2021b): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2021) Diagramming Imprecise and Incomplete Temporal Information. In Basu et al. (Eds.) (2021), 279-286.
- Barseghyan (2021a): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2021) Feyerabend’s General Theory of Scientific Change. In Bschir and Shaw (Eds.) (2021), 57-71.
- Palider et al. (2021): Palider, Kye et al. (2021) A Diagrammatic Notation for Visualizing Epistemic Entities and Relations. Scientonomy 4, 87-139. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37904.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 (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, Overgaard, and Rupik (2018): Barseghyan, Hakob; Overgaard, Nicholas and Rupik, Gregory. (2018) Introduction to History and Philosophy of Science. Open Library. eCampus Ontario. Retrieved from https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/introhps/.
- 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.
- 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.
- Barseghyan (2015): Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
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
- 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.
- 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.
- ^ 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.
- 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.
- ^ 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.
- 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.