Ontology of Scientific Change

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:

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.

In the early twentieth century, logical positivists formulated an ontology of scientific change. While they individually held varying views, we can summarize their ontology by generalizing from the overlap between authors. The 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

Imre Lakatos generated a holistic account of scientific change slightly regressive to previous ontologies. Lakatos kept Kuhn’s view of the fluidity of paradigms within scientific communities however, with two small modifications. Firstly, Lakatos saw paradigms as research programmes, of which many simultaneously existed, and secondly Lakatos believed they followed a more rational model of change, i.e. modifications were judged as regressive or progressive based on certain conditions.5pp. 31-34 With regards to regression, Paul Feyerabend criticized Lakatos for once again suggesting that theories can only be pursued. The whole system Lakatos built was a high functioning competition between research programmes.6 As such, per Lakatos, theories could never really be accepted, and thus they carried the potential to threaten science with a potentially infinite number of theories all of which are rational to pursue.

Finally, Larry Laudan paints the closest picture to the ontology scientonomy posits today. Laudan recognized values, theories, and methodologies as epistemic elements with relations to scientists as epistemic agents. Theories could be accepted under his view and methodologies could be employed. Each epistemic element under Laudan’s reticulated model could be modified. Laudan did not recognize the potential of theories to be used but not accepted but he did recognize pursued and accepted theories in contrast to Lakatos and the logical positivists.7

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:

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.8

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.9

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.10 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.11 The modification became accepted in 2022.

The first scientonomic account of disciplines was suggested by Patton and Al-Zayadi in 2021.12 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):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016The 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. QAQB. 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.10

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".11p. 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.9p. 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.9p. 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".13p.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):

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


References

  1. ^  Schlick, Moritz. (1931) Die Kausalität in der Gegenwärtigen Physik. Die Naturwissenschaften 19, 145-162.
  2. ^  Popper, Karl. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge.
  3. ^  Kuhn, Thomas. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Second Edition, Enlarged. University of Chicago Press.
  4. a b c d e f  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
  5. ^  Lakatos, Imre. (1970) Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Lakatos (1978a), 8-101.
  6. ^  Feyerabend, Paul. (1970) Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 4 (2), 17-129.
  7. ^  Laudan, Larry. (1984) Science and Values. University of California Press.
  8. ^  Sebastien, Zoe. (2016) The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 1, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/26947.
  9. a b c  Rawleigh, William. (2018) The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, 1-12. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29651.
  10. a b  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2018) Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, 13-38. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31032.
  11. a b  Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. Scientonomy 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.
  12. ^  Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. Scientonomy 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.
  13. ^  Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.