Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)
This is an answer to the question Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit that 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."
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 January 2016||The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 30-42 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.||Yes|
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to theory the following question: How ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?
See Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit for more details.
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. 1 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 1 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. 1
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.