Modification:Sciento-2021-0005

Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon.

The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 1 August 2021.1 The discussion was closed on 21 February 2024 and the modification was not accepted. It was superseded by Sciento-2024-0001, Sciento-2024-0002 and Sciento-2024-0003.

Preamble

Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the non-scientific phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.

To locate historical instances of theory decay, there should be evidence that the agent under study existed continuously throughout the period under study, that the theory was accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point, and that the theory left the mosaic without any decision on the part of the agent.

Modification

Accept that there is element decay, a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.

Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay:

• Agent Continuity: there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study.
• Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance: there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point.
• Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment: there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent.

Also accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.

Theories To Accept

• Element Decay Exists: There is such a thing as element decay.
• Theory Decay Exists: There is such a thing as theory decay.
• Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021): Element Decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.

Questions Answered

This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):

• Existence of Element Decay: Does element decay exist?
• Existence of Theory Decay: Does theory decay exist?
• Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon: Is element decay a scientonomic phenomenon?

Verdict

The discussion was closed on 21 February 2024 and the modification was 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.

This modification was superseded by Sciento-2024-0001, Sciento-2024-0002 and Sciento-2024-0003. Click on the Discussion tab for comments.