Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)

This is an answer to the question Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon that states "Element Decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon."

Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon was formulated by Sanghoon Oh in 2021.1

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

This theory has never been accepted.

Suggestions To Accept

Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:

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 Then, Izzy Friesen suggested that the modification should in fact be superseded by three modification, as the original modification essentially consists of three suggestions: accept the existence of element decay; accept the indicators of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.

Question Answered

Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021) is an attempt to answer the following question: Is element decay a scientonomic phenomenon?

See Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon for more details.

Description

Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.

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.