Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon

Is element decay a scientonomic phenomenon?

Is the phenomenon of element decay within the scope of scientonomy? If it is considered a scientonomic phenomenon, then it has to be accounted for by scientonomy.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Sanghoon Oh in 2021.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Our records state that this question has never been accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by any community.

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)	Element Decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	2021

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Verdict	Verdict Rationale	Date Assessed
Sciento-2021-0005	Scientonomy	1 August 2021	Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	Not Accepted	Prior to the 2024 workshop, several comments were left on the encyclopedia expressing a range of opinions regarding accepting the modification. Carlin Henikoff expressed an issue with expecting scientonomers to be responsible for making existential claims regarding phenomena which lie beyond the scope of scientonomy, and highlighted the lack of clear-cut case studies in Oh’s paper, although she did not take issue with the classification of element decay as non-scientonomic or its potential usefulness in explicating mosaic dynamics. Other commenters who supported accepting the modification still identified that further observational work needed to be done on certain aspects of the modification. For example, Joshua Allen believed that more work needed to be done on Oh’s proposed list of necessary indicators, the acceptance of which was entwined with the rest of the modification. During the discussion at the 2024 scientonomy workshop, some participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. After brief discussion led by Paul Patton about non-scientonomic phenomena and whether we have a formal definition for them in scientonomy, Hakob Barseghyan highlighted that accepting that element decay exists and accepting that element decay is non-scientonomic was being coupled in the same modification. Thus, perhaps the modification should be split into two sub-modifications that could be individually voted on, which would also address Patton and Henikoff’s concerns. Then, Izzy Friesen suggested that the modification should in fact be superseded by three modification, as the original modification essentially consists of three suggestions: accept the existence of element decay; accept the indicators of element decay; accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon. After a brief discussion about the merits of splitting, the community voted on whether to split the modification two ways, three ways, or to keep it as is. The option to split the modification three ways reached a two-thirds majority. || 21 February 2024
Sciento-2024-0003	Scientonomy	21 February 2024	Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	Open	The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2024-0001 becomes accepted.

Current View

There is currently no accepted answer to this question.