Ontology of Scientific Change

What is the ontology of scientific change? What are the fundamental entities, processes, and relations involved in the process of scientific change?

Paul Patton's overview of the scientonomic ontology

In the process of scientific change, we are dealing with different epistemic agents, taking different epistemic stances towards different epistemic elements. For instance, we can say that the Paris community of 1720 accepted Cartesian natural philosophy. In this example, Paris community is the epistemic agent, acceptance is their epistemic stance, and Cartesian natural philosophy is the epistemic element. There are a number of important ontological questions that arise here:

• What types of epistemic agents can there be? I.e. can epistemic agents be communal, individual and/or artificial (instruments, AI)?
• What types of epistemic elements can there be in the process of scientific change? I.e. are there theories, method, values, research programmes, paradigms, etc.?
• What are the different epistemic stances that an agent can take towards an element? I.e. do these include acceptance, use, pursuit, employment, commitment, neglect, rejection, etc.?

Addressing these questions is the main task of the ontology of scientific change.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question can be summarized as follows:

• The subtypes of epistemic agent are epistemic community and individual epistemic agent.
• The subtypes of epistemic element are question and theory.
• The subtypes of epistemic stance are compatibility, norm employment, question acceptance, theory acceptance, theory pursuit and theory use.
• The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.

Broader History

Historically, theories of scientific change differed not only in their explanations of how science changes through time, but also in their views on what exactly underwent change in science. Thus, a range of different ontologies of scientific change have been suggested over the years.

Logical positivists generally supposed that there was a single scientific method that did not change through history or across disciplines so that the only epistemic elements capable of change in their ontology were scientific theories.1pp.145-162 A similar ontology was championed by many non-positivist authors, including Karl Popper.2pp. 62-63

Despite its inherent vagueness, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions can be interpreted as suggesting a number of new ontological elements, including methods, values, questions, standards, and problems. It is not quite clear whether these are all meant to be independent epistemic elements in their own right. Kuhn also famously used a whole range of words denoting epistemic stances, such as embraced, universally received, acknowledged, and committed among many others.3pp. 10-13 It remains to be seen whether he meant them as synonyms, or whether he ascribed different meanings to at least some of them.4p. 30 The ideas that there are more general units of scientific change such as paradigms has been echoed by subsequent authors. Thus, Lakatos's ontology of scientific change involved theories and research programmes, understood as a series of theories.5 Similarly, Laudan's early ontology included theories and research traditions.6.

Following Feyerabend's criticism7 of the idea of the fixed method of science, most historians and philosophers came to accept the idea of the changeability of scientific methods. Consequently, methods are found among epistemic elements in most ontologies of scientific change. Consider, for instance, Laudan's later ontology, where the main types of elements that undergo scientific change are theories, methods, and values.8 Similarly, the first scientonomic ontology included theories and methods.4

Scientonomic History

In Barseghyan's The Laws of Scientific Change, the question of the ontology of scientific change is discussed without being explicitly formulated. While the question has been accepted and discussed at length by the scientonomy community ever since its inception, it wasn't until the early 2017 when the question was openly formulated and documented.

Barseghyan's original ontology included:

• Theories and methods as the only two types of epistemic elements that undergo scientific change;4pp. 3-11
• Three epistemic stances towards theories: acceptance, use, and pursuit,4pp. 30-42 as well as one epistemic stance towards methods, employment;4pp. 52-62
• Community as the sole type of epistemic agent capable of taking these stances towards theories and methods.4pp. 43-52

Only descriptive theories were included in Barseghyan's original ontology, while the status of normative theories was left indeterminate due to the the paradox of normative propositions. Once the paradox of normative propositions was resolved, the original ontology was extended by Sebastien to also include normative theories.9

In 2018, Rawleigh suggested that questions are to be accepted as a separate type of epistemic element; the suggestion became accepted later that year and the ontology was modified to include theories, methods, and questions.10

The ontology was further modified by Barseghyan in 2018. In his redrafted ontology, he suggested that methods are a subtype of normative theory. He also suggested including definitions as a subtype of theory.11 As a result of the acceptance of that modification, theories and questions became the two basic subtypes of epistemic elements, with definitions, normative, and descriptive theories being subtypes of theory.

In 2019, Paul Patton suggested that epistemic agents can be of two main types - communal and individual.12 The modification became accepted in 2022.

The first scientonomic account of disciplines was suggested by Patton and Al-Zayadi in 2021.13 The respective modification became accepted in early 2024, introducing the notions of discipline, delineating theory, core question, and core theory into the scientonomic ontology.

Acceptance Record of the Question

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 January 2016	The question was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2017. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC.	Yes

All Direct Answers

No direct answers to the question have been suggested. Note that the question might still have subanswers (answers to its subquestions) and superanswers (answers to its superquestions).

If a direct answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Direct Answers

No direct answer to this question has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

There have been no suggested modifications concerning direct answers to this question.

Current View

Term	Community	Definition	Upper Class	Existence	Subtypes	Supertypes	Associations	Disjointness
Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.	Endurant	Exists			An acceptance criterion is always part of some method.
Accidental Group	Scientonomy	Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017): A group that does not have a collective intentionality.	Endurant	Exists		Group
Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so.	Association	Exists	On the basis of cardinality: Singular Authority Delegation and Multiple Authority Delegation. On the basis of reciprocity: Mutual Authority Delegation and One-sided Authority Delegation.
Community	Scientonomy	Community (Overgaard-2017): A group that has a collective intentionality.	Endurant	Exists		Group	A community can delegate authority to another community.
Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.	Endurant	Exists			A compatibility criterion is always part of some method.
Core Question	Scientonomy	Core Question (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core question of a discipline is a question identified in the discipline’s delineating theory as definitive of the discipline.	Endurant	Exists
Core Theory	Scientonomy	Core Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core theory of a discipline is a theory presupposed by the discipline’s core questions.	Endurant	Exists
Definition	Scientonomy	Definition (Barseghyan-2018): A statement of the meaning of a term.	Endurant	Exists		Theory
Delineating Theory	Scientonomy	Delineating Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A second-order theory identifying the set of core questions of a discipline.	Endurant	Exists			A discipline has one delineating theory.
Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.	Endurant	Exists			A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to describe something.	Endurant	Exists		Theory
Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is characterized by (1) a non-empty set of core questions Q and (2) the delineating theory stating that Q are the core questions of the discipline.	Endurant	Exists			A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has one delineating theory. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines.
Discipline Acceptance	Scientonomy	Discipline Acceptance (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if that agent accepts the core questions specified in the discipline’s delineating theory as well as the delineating theory itself.	Perdurant	Exists
Element Decay	Scientonomy		Perdurant		Theory Decay
Epistemic Action	Scientonomy		Perdurant
Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.	Endurant	Exists	Epistemic Community and Individual Epistemic Agent		An epistemic agent can delegate authority to another epistemic agent. An epistemic agent can rely on any number of epistemic tools, while an epistemic tool can be relied on by one-to-many agent.
Epistemic Community	Scientonomy		Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Agent
Epistemic Element	Scientonomy		Endurant	Exists	Question and Theory
Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): 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.	Association	Exists
Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy		Perdurant	Exists	Theory Use, Theory Pursuit, Question Acceptance, Norm Employment, Compatibility and Theory Acceptance
Epistemic Tool	Scientonomy	Epistemic Tool (Patton-2019): A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent iff there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	Endurant	Exists			An epistemic agent can rely on any number of epistemic tools, while an epistemic tool can be relied on by one-to-many agent.
Error	Scientonomy	Error (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021): An epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method.	Perdurant	Exists
Explicable-Implicit	Scientonomy	Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.	Quality			Implicit
Explicit	Scientonomy	Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.	Quality
Global Epistemic Action	Scientonomy		Perdurant
Group	Scientonomy	Group (Overgaard-2017): Two or more people who share any characteristic.	Endurant	Exists	Community and Accidental Group
Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.	Association	Exists		Multiple Authority Delegation
History of Scientific Change	Scientonomy	History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.	Endurant
Implicit	Scientonomy	Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Not explicit.	Quality		Explicable-Implicit and Inexplicable
Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy		Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Agent
Individual Level	Scientonomy	Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.	Endurant
Inexplicable	Scientonomy	Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.	Quality			Implicit
Local Action Availability	Scientonomy		Endurant
Local Epistemic Action	Scientonomy		Perdurant
Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021): 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.	Association	Exists
Method	Scientonomy	Method (Barseghyan-2018): A set of criteria for theory evaluation.	Endurant	Exists	Substantive Method and Procedural Method	Normative Theory	An acceptance criterion is always part of some method. A compatibility criterion is always part of some method. A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy		Endurant
Methodology	Scientonomy	Methodology (Barseghyan-2018): A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.	Endurant	Exists
Model	Scientonomy		Endurant
Mosaic Merge	Scientonomy	Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.	Endurant	Exists
Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.	Perdurant	Exists
Multiple Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Multiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agent.	Association	Exists	Hierarchical Authority Delegation and Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Authority Delegation
Mutual Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Mutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Non-Epistemic Community	Scientonomy		Endurant
Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.	Association	Exists		Multiple Authority Delegation
Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something.	Endurant	Exists	Method	Theory
One-sided Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	One-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Outcome Inconclusive	Scientonomy	Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.	Quality
Outcome Not Satisfied	Scientonomy	Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	Quality
Outcome Satisfied	Scientonomy	Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	Quality
Procedural Method	Scientonomy	Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.	Endurant	Exists		Method
Question	Scientonomy	Question (Rawleigh-2018): A topic of inquiry.	Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Element	A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines. A question can have subquestions. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018): A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Question Pursuit	Scientonomy		Perdurant
Reason	Scientonomy		Endurant
Scientific Change	Scientonomy	Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.	Perdurant	Exists
Scientific Community	Scientonomy		Endurant	Exists
Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic (Rawleigh-2022): A model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent.	Endurant	Exists
Singular Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Singular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Social Level	Scientonomy	Social Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.	Endurant
Sociocultural Factors	Scientonomy		Endurant	Exists
Subdiscipline	Scientonomy	Subdiscipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline A is a subdiscipline of another discipline B, iff the set of questions of A, QA, is a proper subset of the questions of B, QB, i.e. QA ⸦ QB.	Endurant	Exists
Subquestion	Scientonomy	Subquestion (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A question Q is a subquestion of another question Q’, iff any direct answer to Q is also a partial answer to Q’.	Association	Exists
Substantive Method	Scientonomy	Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.	Endurant	Exists		Method
Theory	Scientonomy	Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions.	Endurant	Exists	Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory and Definition	Epistemic Element	A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018): A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Theory Decay	Scientonomy		Perdurant			Element Decay
Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Tool Reliance	Scientonomy	Tool Reliance (Patton-2019): An epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool iff there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	Association	Exists

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question are Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018), Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019), Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018), Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015), Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018), Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018), Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018), Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) and Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).

Subtypes of Epistemic Agent

Epistemic Community Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Barseghyan-2018) states: "Epistemic Community is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of epistemic community."

According to Barseghyan, epistemic community is an epistemic agent, i.e. it is capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.11

Individual Epistemic Agent Is a Subtype of Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019) states: "Individual Epistemic Agent is a subtype of Epistemic Agent, i.e. epistemic agent is a supertype of individual epistemic agent."

According to Patton, individuals are "capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements, with reason, based on a semantic understanding of the elements and their available alternatives, and with the goal of producing knowledge".12p. 82

Subtypes of Epistemic Element

Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018) states: "Question is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of question."

A study of the process of scientific change reveals many cases when a question that was considered legitimate in a certain time-period became illegitimate in another period. For example, the questions such as “what is the weight of phlogiston?” or “why does some matter gain mass as it loses phlogiston?” were accepted as legitimate topics of inquiry for the most part of the 18th century. Yet, once the phlogiston theory was rejected, these questions became illegitimate. Another examples is the question “what is the distance from the earth to the sphere of stars?” that was once considered legitimate by astronomers, but is no longer accepted.10p. 4

Similarly, there are questions which are considered legitimate these days but weren't accepted even a few centuries ago. An example of this is the question “what’s the underlying mechanics of the evolution of species?” - a perfectly legitimate topic of biological research nowadays that would have been deemed illegitimate three hundred years ago.10p. 4

These examples suggest that questions are part of the process of scientific changes. More specifically, they are a subtype of epistemic element.

Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Theory is a subtype of Epistemic Element, i.e. epistemic element is a supertype of theory."

According to this theory, theories are a subtype of epistemic element. Among other things, this assumes that epsitemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards theories.

Subtypes of Epistemic Stance

Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Theory Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory acceptance."

Norm Employment Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2018) states: "Norm Employment is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of norm employment."

Question Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Rawleigh-2018) states: "Question Acceptance is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of question acceptance."

Compatibility Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "Compatibility is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of compatibility."

According to Fraser and Sarwar, "compatibility is a distinct epistemic stance that agents can take towards elements".14p.70 They show this by arguing that it is possible to take the stance of compatibility towards a pair of elements without taking any of the other stances towards these elements. Thus, compatibility is distinct from acceptance, since two elements need not be in the same mosaic, or even accepted by any agent to be considered, in principle, compatible. For example, an epistemic agent may consider Ptolemaic astrology compatible with Aristotelian natural philosophy without accepting either Ptolemaic astrology or Aristotelian natural philosophy. Compatibility is also different from use, since a pair of theories can be considered compatible regardless of whether any of them is considered useful. For instance, one can consider quantum mechanics and evolutionary biology compatible, while finding only the former useful. Finally, compatibility is also distinct from pursuit, since an agent can consider a pair of theories compatible with or without pursuing either. An agent, for instance, may find two alternative quantum theories pursuitworthy while clearly realizing that the two are incompatible.

Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Theory Use is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory use."

Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Theory Pursuit is a subtype of Epistemic Stance, i.e. epistemic stance is a supertype of theory pursuit."

Theory Assessment Outcomes

Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive."

According to this ontology of theory assessment outcomes, when a theory is assessed by a method, one of the three following outcomes can obtain:4p. 199

• Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• Not Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
• Inconclusive: it is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.

While the first two assessment outcomes are conclusive, the third outcome is inconclusive, as it permits more than one possible course of action. Thus, in this view, a theory's assessment outcome is not necessarily conclusive; an inconclusive outcome is also conceivable.

This ontology is assumed by the second law of scientific change as formulated by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017.

Related Topics

It has the following sub-topic(s):

• Bearers of Mosaic
• Existence of Method Hierarchies
• Hierarchy of Theories
• Status of Multiple Mutual Delegation
• Status of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation
• Subtypes of Epistemic Agent
• Subtypes of Epistemic Element
• Subtypes of Epistemic Stance
• Theory Assessment Outcomes

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

• Mechanism of Scientific Change