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. Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available theory on the subject. Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015) states "Scientonomy ought to explain changes in a scientific mosaic, including changes from one accepted theory to the next and one employed method to the next."

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

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Scientonomy ought to explain changes in a scientific mosaic, including changes from one accepted theory to the next and one employed method to the next.	2015

If a theory on this normative question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:

Community	Theory	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

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

Current View

In Scientonomy community, the accepted theory on the subject is Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015). It states: "Scientonomy ought to explain changes in a scientific mosaic, including changes from one accepted theory to the next and one employed method to the next." According to Barseghyan's initial stipulation, a scientonomic theory should: Read More

Open Questions

The following related topic(s) currently lack an accepted answer:

• Scope of Scientonomy - Mosaic Formation: Should Scientonomy tackle the question of the initial formation of a scientific mosaic? The topic has no accepted answer in Scientonomy.

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

Contributors

Paul Patton (56.9%), Hakob Barseghyan (43.1%)