editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
== Open Questions ==• Are there in fact philosophical communities, or is there always too much disagreement? Are these disagreements the result of acceptance criteria which are too strict, or too vague? The answer to this question would require historical analysis. (Jennifer Whyte, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016) • In what circumstances can the views of an individual scientist be indicative of the views of their community? For example, can a historical analysis of Giordano Bruno’s belief in heliocentricism and the opposition he received from other natural philosophers shed light on the geocentric beliefs of his community? (Jennifer Whyte, Jacob MacKinnon, Joshua Payne Smith, 2016) • Imagine two geographically isolated communities with different sets of beliefs. If these communities were to undergo change (without any inter-communication between them) and end up with the same set of beliefs, would they become a single community? (Jennifer Whyte, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016) • We define a knowledge-producing community as being an epistemic community. Does a community such as a football team— which does not have a collective intentionality to produce knowledge, but may produce some as a by-product (e.g knowledge on the best strategies to win a football game)— count as an epistemic community? • Is there a difference between producing knowledge and acquiring knowledge? If there is a difference, then is a community that holds a mosaic a knowledge-producing community or a knowledge-acquiring community, or do both kinds of communities hold mosaics?|Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Law, Mosaic Bearers,
no edit summary
The failure of the Supradium Model was that it never consistently defined the notion of a scientific community using necessary and sufficient characteristics. An interest community was, in essence, a redefinition of the community as “bearer of a mosaic” in the sense that any interest community simply shares a set of theories and methods. Proposing interest communities offered nothing new to scientonomy. Network communities seemed important – indeed, they remain important for understanding the social elements of science – but lacked a formulation that could be incorporated into ''The Laws of Scientific Change''. They were deemed an unnecessary, but possible feature of a scientific community, to be explored – pursued, if you will – in some other way. Lastly, we had institutional communities. Institutional communities seemed the most feasible direction for defining a scientific community given ''The Laws''’ adaptation to changing historical contexts because institutional communities truly recognized themselves as communities, rather than being arbitrary characteristics imposed onto a historical case study by a researcher.
|Current View=Currently, ''scientific community'' refers to the bearer of a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. At the moment, the term lacks a proper definition. It continues to be referred to as “the bearer of a scientific mosaic”.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.249]] Yet the concept remains fundamental to the field. For, every time a scientonomist refers to a [[Theory|theory]] that is [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] or a [[Method|method]] that is [[Method Employment|employed]], they actually mean a theory accepted or a method employed ''by the scientific community''.
}}
{{Acceptance Record
