Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)

This is an answer to the question Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social that 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."

Scope of Scientonomy - Social was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this theory:

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. 43-51 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.	Yes

Question Answered

Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: Ought a scientonomic theory account for changes in the mosaics of individual scientists, the mosaics of communities, or both?

See Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social for more details.

Description

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.

Reasons

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.