Modification:Sciento-2017-0012

Accept a new taxonomy for group and its two sub-types - accidental group, and community.

The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Nicholas Overgaard on 19 May 2017.1 The modification was accepted on 2 February 2018.

Preamble

Although it is accept in scientonomy that communities are bearers of mosaics, the notion of community currently lacks a proper definition. To remedy the situation, I suggest differentiating between accidental group and community as two different types of group based on the respective absence and presence of a collective intentionality. This differentiation provides a foundation for the taxonomy of social agents of scientific change.

Modification

Accept the following taxonomy for group and its two sub-types:

Theories To Accept

• Community (Overgaard-2017): A group that has a collective intentionality.

• Group (Overgaard-2017): Two or more people who share any characteristic.

• Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017): A group that does not have a collective intentionality.

• Community Exists: There is such a thing as a community.
• Accidental Group Exists: There is such a thing as an accidental group.
• Accidental Group Is a Subtype of Group (Overgaard-2017): Accidental Group is a subtype of Group, i.e. group is a supertype of accidental group.
• Community Is a Subtype of Group (Overgaard-2017): Community is a subtype of Group, i.e. group is a supertype of community.
• Group Exists: There is such a thing as a group.

Questions Answered

This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):

• Group: What is group? How should it be defined?
• Community: What is community? How should it be defined?
• Accidental Group: What is accidental group? How should it be defined?
• Existence of Community: Does a community exist?
• Supertypes of Community: What are the supertypes of a community?
• Existence of Accidental Group: Does an accidental group exist?
• Supertypes of Accidental Group: What are the supertypes of an accidental group?
• Subtypes of Group: What are the subtypes of a group?
• Existence of Group: Does a group exist?

Verdict

The modification was accepted on 2 February 2018. A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"^c1 and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".^c2 Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of group as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.^c3 Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",^c4 it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".^c5

Click on the Discussion tab for comments.