Changes

|Description=There have been many cases in the history of science when one [[Scientific Community|community ,]] with a single [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] divided into two or more communities, with different mosaics. These distinct communities would then have differ regarding at least one of their own distinct [[Theory Acceptance|accepted theories and ]] or [[Employed Method|employed methods]]. For example, consider the case outlined by [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] of the distinct mosaics of French and English natural philosophers in the early part of the 18th century, wherein the . The former accepted a version of Cartesian theory while the latter accepted a version of Newtonian theory.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 203]] We can see by various indicators[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 113-120]] that the dispute between these two communities was not a simple matter of scientific disagreement within a community such as we might observe in , like the contemporary dispute between various interpretations of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is generally regarded as In the accepted view [[CiteRef::Faye (2014)]] but a number case of other quantum mechanics, even those who advocate alternatives are advocated by various individuals within the field. As note by Barseghyan, it this is a perfectly acceptable situation so long as the individuals acknowledge that the ''accepted'' theory is that the Copenhagen Interpretation is currently accepted as the best available description of its object.[[CiteRef::Faye (2014)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 202]] A Such contender theory might be theories are said to be [[Theory Pursuit|pursued]] but this is perfectly consistent with our present understanding of scientific change.  What makes the situation in the case of the 18th century French and English mosaics distinct different is that the two communities [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] the different theories (Cartesian and Newtonian physics , respectively) as the best available description of the physical reality. In this such a case we are justified as regarded to regard these as two distinct epistemic communities which , each bears bearing its own mosaic. Understanding the mechanism by circumstances under which this sort of situation occurs arises is among the goals of a general descriptive theory of scientific change.