Changes

* Is it possible for a community to say that they do not accept a theory, but in reality they do? Are there any In other words, what is the status of ‘tacit knowledge’ in the TSC? Can we find historical examples cases of a case situations like this? (Jaqueline Sereda)* If a theory is accepted in violation of the second law, should we ignore this in our historical analysis, or should the TSC attempt to explain these instances? (Jacob MacKinnon2016)* Can we apply the "accepted/used/pursued" distinction to methods?* How do If so, this might help us in our analysis of how normative propositions (e.g ethicsespecially ethical propositions) affects affect method employment? Or does it only affect . For example, a method "use"?deemed unethical may not be used, but still accepted as being effective for theory assessment. * The Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem says that employment of methods is not always necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories. But surely all methods (even concrete implementations of abstract requirements) are employed simultaneously with the acceptance of a descriptive proposition which states that that method is effective. Does this poses a challenge towards the Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016)* The TSC currently states that the employment of a new concrete method cannot lead to the rejection of another employed method. However, it seems conceivable that method X might cease to be employed when a new method is employed which is thought to be more effective than X. Are there any examples of this happening in the history of science? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016)* Scientists often seem to rely on practical propositions when conduction research— e.g “when conducting an experiment, chose the cheapest technique capable of producing acceptable results”. What is the status of practical propositions like these in the mosaic? Are they normative theories, or some other a separate entity? How are they accepted into the mosaic, and how do they change through time? How do they become accepted? How do they affect other elements of the mosaic; specifically, can ? Do they ever affect the method employment? (Hakob Barseghyan, Paul Patton, 2016)* Can we Currently, the existence of a mosaic split is the only way for us as historians of science to identify a case of inconclusive theory assessment. However, it is logically possible (given the Laws of Scientific Change) for the result of theory assessment apart from to be inconclusive and yet the entire community chooses to accept the theory. In this case, no mosaic splitwould occur. Is it possible to identify these cases in our historical analysis? (Paul Patton, 2016)* Are there really cases instances of necessary theory assessmentacceptance, or is every ever case of theory assessment inconclusive to a degree? If there arenecessary cases, is there a way it possible for us as historians to show decisively that a theory was necessarily accepted rather than accepted after an inconclusive assessment? (Paul Patton)* Are We can ask the same question with regard to mosaic splits: are necessary mosaic splits really theoretically possible, or are all mosaic splits the result of inconclusive assessment? And if they are possible, can we ever as historians detect them? (Paul Patton, 2016)