Scope of Scientonomy

What types of phenomena should a scientonomic theory account for?

It is important for any science to have a clear idea as to what phenomena it ought to be explaining. This question is normative, as its answers are necessarily prescriptions of what the scope of scientonomy ought to be. As such, this question is not to be confused with the descriptive question of the scope of this or that specific scientonomic theory. Questions about the scope of scientonomy include:

• Should a scientonomic theory be normative or descriptive?
• Should it deal with the process of theory construction or the process of theory assessment or both?
• Changes in which stances should it trace and explain: should it explain theory acceptance, use, pursuit, or any combination of these?
• Should it explain changes in the belief systems of individual scientists or should it focus on scientific communities?
• Should it explain transitions in implicit rules of theory assessment actually employed by scientists, or should it explain changes in explicitly formulated rules?
• Changes at what time periods and in what fields of science should it explain?

  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:

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. 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. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found.
• 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.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

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	This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.	Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

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

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question are Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017), Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015), Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015) and Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015).

Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit

Scope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017) states: "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."

The methods employed in theory assessment do not always correspond to the professed scientific methodology, and may be purely implicit. Thus, a scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between accepted methodologies and employed methods. Because of their role in theory assessment, and thus in determining the contents of the scientific mosaic, a scientonomic theory ought to include employed methods, whether they are explicit or implicit. 1pp. 52-61

Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal

Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

The goal of scientonomy is to give a descriptive account of the process of scientific change. Given this goal, it is obvious that it must describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any actual instance of scientific change is the result of an appraisal. Therefore, a theory of scientific change must provide an account of how theories are actually appraised and thereby explain how changes in the mosaic occur. On the other hand, it can but is not required to account for the process of theory construction.1p. 29

Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social

Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

Scientonomy focuses on the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. In their daily work, individual scientists rely on and formulate theories about the object of their research, and use methods to appraise their theories. Both the theories they believe and the criteria they use to assess them may change over time. Although historians of science have often focused on individual scientists, often those deemed great, like Galileo or Einstein, and the changes in their beliefs as they constructed and assessed theories, changes to the scientific mosaic itself happen at the level of the community. Scientonomy thus seeks to focus efforts on the social level of the scientific community rather than on the individual.

Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative

Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

There are at least three sorts of questions that we might ask about the process of scientific change; Historical questions having to do with what theories and methods were accepted by a particular community at a particular point in time, theoretical questions about the mechanisms of scientific change, and methodological questions about how scientific change ought to happen and what theories and methods ought to be accepted. The first two questions are descriptive in nature, and the third is normative. 1pp. 12-13 As the "science of science" scientonomy seeks a purely descriptive account of processes of change in the scientific mosaic and therefore encompasses only historical and theoretical questions. Keeping descriptive scientific questions distinct from questions of normative methodology avoids numerous pitfalls. For example, those who conflate the two sometimes argue that because some method is known to have flaws of logical consistency or soundness, it cannot possibly have been the one that was, in fact, used by scientists. However, there is a great deal historical evidence that scientists actually have used logically flawed methods. Inductive reasoning is a ubiquitous part of science, despite its well known flaws.21pp. 19-20 The intrusion of normative concerns could also undermine scientonomy's aspirations to scientific status. If any laws of scientific change discovered were accorded normative force they would become tautological truths incapable being called into question by empirical inquiry.

Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale

Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern."

It is a task of scientonomy to trace and explain all changes in a mosaic, regardless of which field (discipline) the change concerns. This applies to all fields of inquiry considered scientific by the respective community. For instance, if theology or astrology were parts of the mosaic under study, then a transition from one accepted theological or astrological theory to another during that time period should be explained by scientonomy.

Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

Any change in a mosaic is within the scope of scientonomy. Scientonomy should explain not only major transitions in the mosaic such as those from the Aristotelian-Medieval set of theories to those of Descartes and his followers, but also relatively minor transitions, such as a transition from "the Solar system has 7 planets" to "the Solar system has 8 planets". The question of actual taxonomy of scales is to be settled by an actual scientonomic theory. A scientonomic theory may distinguish between between grand and minor changes, revolutions and normal-science changes, or hard core and auxiliary changes; in any case, it ought to provide explanations at changes at all levels.

Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found."

Scientonomy ought not to limit its applicability to a restricted time period. If a scientific mosaic can be identified at a certain period in time, then it is a task of scientonomy to explain any and all changes in that mosaic at that time period. Similarly, an observational scientonomists ought not exclude any time period from their domain.

Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit

Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015) states: "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."

Scientonomy currently recognizes several different stances that an epistemic community might take towards a theory. The community might accept the theory as the best currently available description of the world, it might regard a theory as worthy of pursuit and further development, or it might regard the theory as adequate for use for some practical purpose, while not the best description of the world. 1pp. 30-42 These stances, and their opposites (i.e. that a theory is unaccepted, neglected, or unused)together constitute the range of stances that a community might take towards a theory. The concept of a scientific mosaic consisting of the set of all theories accepted, and all methods employed by the community 1pp.1-11 is central to scientonomy, as is the goal of explaining all changes in this mosaic. To fulfill this central goal, a scientonomic theory ought to explain how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place, and what logic governs that transition, but it doesn't necessarily need to explain why some theories are pursued and others neglected and why some are used and others remain unused. 1p. 42

Related Topics

It has the following sub-topic(s):

• Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit
• Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal
• Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative
• Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit
• Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social
• Scope of Scientonomy - Mosaic Formation
• Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale

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

• Possibility of Scientonomy
• Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent
• Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction
• Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track Record
• Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method