Test

nothing found

	Community	Term	Topic	Theory	Disjoints
Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria
Disjointness of Accidental Group	Scientonomy	Accidental Group	Disjointness of Accidental Group
Disjointness of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Authority Delegation
Disjointness of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Disjointness of Community
Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria
Disjointness of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Disjointness of Compatibility
Disjointness of Core Question	Scientonomy	Core Question	Disjointness of Core Question
Disjointness of Core Theory	Scientonomy	Core Theory	Disjointness of Core Theory
Disjointness of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Disjointness of Definition
Disjointness of Delineating Theory	Scientonomy	Delineating Theory	Disjointness of Delineating Theory
Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria
Disjointness of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Disjointness of Descriptive Theory
Disjointness of Discipline Acceptance	Scientonomy	Discipline Acceptance	Disjointness of Discipline Acceptance
Disjointness of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Disjointness of Discipline
Disjointness of Element Decay	Scientonomy	Element Decay	Disjointness of Element Decay
Disjointness of Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Epistemic Action	Disjointness of Epistemic Action
Disjointness of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Disjointness of Epistemic Agent
Disjointness of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Disjointness of Epistemic Community
Disjointness of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Disjointness of Epistemic Element
Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition
Disjointness of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Disjointness of Epistemic Stance
Disjointness of Error	Scientonomy	Error	Disjointness of Error
Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit	Scientonomy	Explicable-Implicit	Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit
Disjointness of Global Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Global Epistemic Action	Disjointness of Global Epistemic Action
Disjointness of Group	Scientonomy	Group	Disjointness of Group
Disjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation
Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent
Disjointness of Local Action Availability	Scientonomy	Local Action Availability	Disjointness of Local Action Availability
Disjointness of Local Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Local Epistemic Action	Disjointness of Local Epistemic Action
Disjointness of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Disjointness of Logical Presupposition
Disjointness of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Disjointness of Method Hierarchy
Disjointness of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Disjointness of Method
Disjointness of Methodology	Scientonomy	Methodology	Disjointness of Methodology
Disjointness of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Disjointness of Model
Disjointness of Mosaic Merge	Scientonomy	Mosaic Merge	Disjointness of Mosaic Merge
Disjointness of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Disjointness of Mosaic Split
Disjointness of Multiple Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Multiple Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Multiple Authority Delegation
Disjointness of Non-Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Non-Epistemic Community	Disjointness of Non-Epistemic Community
Disjointness of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation
Disjointness of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Disjointness of Norm Employment
Disjointness of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Disjointness of Normative Theory
Disjointness of Procedural Method	Scientonomy	Procedural Method	Disjointness of Procedural Method
Disjointness of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Disjointness of Question Acceptance
Disjointness of Question Pursuit	Scientonomy	Question Pursuit	Disjointness of Question Pursuit
Disjointness of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Disjointness of Question
Disjointness of Reason	Scientonomy	Reason	Disjointness of Reason
Disjointness of Scientific Change	Scientonomy	Scientific Change	Disjointness of Scientific Change
Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic
Disjointness of Scientonomy	Scientonomy	Scientonomy	Disjointness of Scientonomy
Disjointness of Singular Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Singular Authority Delegation	Disjointness of Singular Authority Delegation
Disjointness of Sociocultural Factors	Scientonomy	Sociocultural Factors	Disjointness of Sociocultural Factors
Disjointness of Subdiscipline	Scientonomy	Subdiscipline	Disjointness of Subdiscipline
Disjointness of Subquestion	Scientonomy	Subquestion	Disjointness of Subquestion
Disjointness of Substantive Method	Scientonomy	Substantive Method	Disjointness of Substantive Method
Disjointness of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Disjointness of Theory Acceptance
Disjointness of Theory Decay	Scientonomy	Theory Decay	Disjointness of Theory Decay
Disjointness of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Disjointness of Theory Pursuit
Disjointness of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Disjointness of Theory Use
Disjointness of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Disjointness of Theory

	Community	Term	Topic	Theory	Existence
Existence of Acceptance Criteria	Scientonomy	Acceptance Criteria	Existence of Acceptance Criteria	Acceptance Criteria Exists	Exists
Existence of Accidental Group	Scientonomy	Accidental Group	Existence of Accidental Group	Accidental Group Exists	Exists
Existence of Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Authority Delegation	Existence of Authority Delegation	Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Community	Scientonomy	Community	Existence of Community	Community Exists	Exists
Existence of Compatibility Criteria	Scientonomy	Compatibility Criteria	Existence of Compatibility Criteria	Compatibility Criteria Exists	Exists
Existence of Compatibility	Scientonomy	Compatibility	Existence of Compatibility	Compatibility Exists	Exists
Existence of Core Question	Scientonomy	Core Question	Existence of Core Question	Core Question Exists	Exists
Existence of Core Theory	Scientonomy	Core Theory	Existence of Core Theory	Core Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of Definition	Scientonomy	Definition	Existence of Definition	Definition Exists	Exists
Existence of Delineating Theory	Scientonomy	Delineating Theory	Existence of Delineating Theory	Delineating Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of Demarcation Criteria	Scientonomy	Demarcation Criteria	Existence of Demarcation Criteria	Demarcation Criteria Exists	Exists
Existence of Descriptive Theory	Scientonomy	Descriptive Theory	Existence of Descriptive Theory	Descriptive Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of Discipline Acceptance	Scientonomy	Discipline Acceptance	Existence of Discipline Acceptance	Discipline Acceptance Exists	Exists
Existence of Discipline	Scientonomy	Discipline	Existence of Discipline	Discipline Exists	Exists
Existence of Element Decay	Scientonomy	Element Decay	Existence of Element Decay
Existence of Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Epistemic Action	Existence of Epistemic Action
Existence of Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Epistemic Agent	Existence of Epistemic Agent	Epistemic Agent Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Epistemic Community	Existence of Epistemic Community	Epistemic Community Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Element	Scientonomy	Epistemic Element	Existence of Epistemic Element	Epistemic Element Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Scientonomy	Epistemic Presupposition	Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	Epistemic Presupposition Exists	Exists
Existence of Epistemic Stance	Scientonomy	Epistemic Stance	Existence of Epistemic Stance	Epistemic Stance Exists	Exists
Existence of Error	Scientonomy	Error	Existence of Error	Error Exists	Exists
Existence of Global Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Global Epistemic Action	Existence of Global Epistemic Action
Existence of Group	Scientonomy	Group	Existence of Group	Group Exists	Exists
Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Hierarchical Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Implicit	Scientonomy	Implicit	Existence of Implicit
Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Scientonomy	Individual Epistemic Agent	Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent	Individual Epistemic Agent Exists	Exists
Existence of Local Action Availability	Scientonomy	Local Action Availability	Existence of Local Action Availability
Existence of Local Epistemic Action	Scientonomy	Local Epistemic Action	Existence of Local Epistemic Action
Existence of Logical Presupposition	Scientonomy	Logical Presupposition	Existence of Logical Presupposition	Logical Presupposition Exists	Exists
Existence of Method Hierarchy	Scientonomy	Method Hierarchy	Existence of Method Hierarchy
Existence of Method	Scientonomy	Method	Existence of Method	Method Exists	Exists
Existence of Methodology	Scientonomy	Methodology	Existence of Methodology	Methodology Exists	Exists
Existence of Model	Scientonomy	Model	Existence of Model
Existence of Mosaic Merge	Scientonomy	Mosaic Merge	Existence of Mosaic Merge	Mosaic Merge Exists	Exists
Existence of Mosaic Split	Scientonomy	Mosaic Split	Existence of Mosaic Split	Mosaic Split Exists	Exists
Existence of Multiple Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Multiple Authority Delegation	Existence of Multiple Authority Delegation	Multiple Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Mutual Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Mutual Authority Delegation	Existence of Mutual Authority Delegation	Mutual Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Non-Epistemic Community	Scientonomy	Non-Epistemic Community	Existence of Non-Epistemic Community
Existence of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Existence of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Norm Employment	Scientonomy	Norm Employment	Existence of Norm Employment	Norm Employment Exists	Exists
Existence of Normative Theory	Scientonomy	Normative Theory	Existence of Normative Theory	Normative Theory Exists	Exists
Existence of One-sided Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	One-sided Authority Delegation	Existence of One-sided Authority Delegation	One-sided Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Procedural Method	Scientonomy	Procedural Method	Existence of Procedural Method	Procedural Method Exists	Exists
Existence of Question Acceptance	Scientonomy	Question Acceptance	Existence of Question Acceptance	Question Acceptance Exists	Exists
Existence of Question Pursuit	Scientonomy	Question Pursuit	Existence of Question Pursuit
Existence of Question	Scientonomy	Question	Existence of Question	Question Exists	Exists
Existence of Reason	Scientonomy	Reason	Existence of Reason
Existence of Scientific Change	Scientonomy	Scientific Change	Existence of Scientific Change	Scientific Change Exists	Exists
Existence of Scientific Community	Scientonomy	Scientific Community	Existence of Scientific Community	Scientific Community Exists	Exists
Existence of Scientific Mosaic	Scientonomy	Scientific Mosaic	Existence of Scientific Mosaic	Scientific Mosaic Exists	Exists
Existence of Scientonomy	Scientonomy	Scientonomy	Existence of Scientonomy	Scientonomy Exists	Exists
Existence of Singular Authority Delegation	Scientonomy	Singular Authority Delegation	Existence of Singular Authority Delegation	Singular Authority Delegation Exists	Exists
Existence of Sociocultural Factors	Scientonomy	Sociocultural Factors	Existence of Sociocultural Factors	Sociocultural Factors Exists	Exists
Existence of Subdiscipline	Scientonomy	Subdiscipline	Existence of Subdiscipline	Subdiscipline Exists	Exists
Existence of Subquestion	Scientonomy	Subquestion	Existence of Subquestion	Subquestion Exists	Exists
Existence of Substantive Method	Scientonomy	Substantive Method	Existence of Substantive Method	Substantive Method Exists	Exists
Existence of Theory Acceptance	Scientonomy	Theory Acceptance	Existence of Theory Acceptance	Theory Acceptance Exists	Exists
Existence of Theory Decay	Scientonomy	Theory Decay	Existence of Theory Decay
Existence of Theory Pursuit	Scientonomy	Theory Pursuit	Existence of Theory Pursuit	Theory Pursuit Exists	Exists
Existence of Theory Use	Scientonomy	Theory Use	Existence of Theory Use	Theory Use Exists	Exists
Existence of Theory	Scientonomy	Theory	Existence of Theory	Theory Exists	Exists

Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)

There are several options here: One, Two, Three and Four.

There is only one option: One There are no options.

Like demarcation and acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria can be part of an epistemic agent's employed method. An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements (e.g. methods, theories, questions) are mutually compatible or incompatible, i.e. whether they can be simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it (e.g. scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). Fraser and Sarwar point out that Barseghyan's original definition of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".p. 72 To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".p. 72

Different communities can have different compatibility criteria. While some communities may opt to employ the logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of compatibility, other communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. According to Barseghyan, the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a good indication that the actual criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".p. 11 For example, this is apparent in the case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective domains (i.e. they are considered compatible), but are known to be in conflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.

Hello world

This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."

This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy

the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at

• outlining the current state of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;
• tracing all suggested modifications to our communal knowledge;
• documenting the open questions concerning the process of scientific change.

There are currently 3,741 pages in this encyclopedia.

Featured Article Mechanism of Method Employment How do methods become employed by an epistemic agent? In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022) and The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022) are currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answers to the question. At the moment, the question has no accepted answer in Scientonomy. Read More In the news 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2024-0001 was not accepted. This modification was one of the three introduced that superseded Oh’s original modification, given that members of the community wanted the option to vote separately on the three distinct modifications contained in the original proposed modification. The community found that, while there are intuitive reasons to accept element decay’s existence, the lack of observational evidence beyond Oh’s investigation of the episode of Cremonese violins brought many people pause. Rebecca Muscant noted that the risks of accepting the existence of a phenomenon prematurely overweigh the risks of keeping the question open, since showing the non-existence of a phenomenon is a much more arduous task. Deivide Oliveira suggested that, in spite of this risk, accepting the modification would allow for more instances of element decay to be identified. However, Landon See and Hakob Barseghyan pushed back, suggesting that the premature acceptance of the existence of element decay may in fact disencourage scholars from searching for other historical episodes involving element decay. They suggested that leaving the question open would be more conducive to future pursuit of the topic. It was also agreed that one clear-cut instance is necessary before the existence of element decay can be accepted. Concern about stakes more generally permeated the discussion. Although Jamie Shaw rightly identified that our community has safeguards against dogmatic practice, and is small enough that things do not slip through the cracks, concerns about premature acceptance persisted until the end of the discussion. Ultimately, then the community voted to keep the modification open by over a 2/3rds majority. 11 out of 15 votes supported keeping the modification open. Read More 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0005 was not accepted. Prior to the 2024 scientonomy 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 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. Read More 21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0006 was accepted. Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia indicating his support for accepting this modification and noted its potential to underpin further work on discipline dynamics. In fact, a significant amount of observational scientonomy work has been carried out in the past few years (including the paper on the rejection of alchemy by Friesen and Patton (2023),1 as well as some more recent papers) that presupposes the acceptance of these definitions, despite the fact that the modification containing them formally remains open. There was very little discussion about the modification, beyond raising points for the community to look forward to in the future, like a brief discussion between Jamie Shaw and Paul Patton about the need for more research on the difference between disciplines and disciplinary communities. The modification was accepted unanimously with 18 votes. Read More

Recent Suggested Modifications (all) Sciento-2024-0003: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0002: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0001: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Recent Publications (check out the journal) Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen Abstract: This paper applies Patton and Al-Zayadi’s scientonomic framework for understanding disciplines to a case study of the development of the chemical discipline ("chymistry") from the 17th century through the early 18th century in Western Europe. Using evidence from the tradition of textbook publication that emerged in the seventeenth-century chymistry, we reconstruct the top-level of the question hierarchy of chymistry. Analyzing how these questions and their associated theories were received, we first show how, starting in the 1660s, alchemy transitioned from a synonym of chymistry to chymistry’s subdiscipline with a more limited scope. We identify that the rejection of alchemy's core questions occurred in the 1720s based on the reception of these questions in scientific publications and by academic institutions. Hence, we conclude that the subdiscipline of alchemy became rejected in the 1720s. In order to conduct our case-study, we closely follow Newman and Principe's research on early modern alchemy and chymistry in our reconstruction of the episode. However, using the scientonomic framework in analyzing this case study reveals the specific dynamics of this instance of sub-discipline rejection. Our deepened understanding of this hallmark historical episode of disciplinary rejection indicates the value of Patton and Al-Zayadi’s theoretical framework for observational scientonomic research. Read More Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework Joshua Allen Abstract: In a series of publications, Hasok Chang makes the case that activities carried out by epistemic agents form the basis of the scientific enterprise. This paper provides an action-based scientonomic perspective of scientific practice. I define epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element and highlight the difference between global and local actions. The availability of a local action to an epistemic agent amounts to the agent employing the norm that the local action is permissible/desirable. To unearth the mechanism by which local actions become available to epistemic agents, I derive the local action availability theorem, according to which, a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic, i.e., from that agent’s employed norms and accepted theories. This framework is then applied to the emergence of the local action of determining the composition of chemical substances by weighing as practiced by Lavoisier and his followers; it is shown that the respective norm became employed in accord with the local action availability theorem. Read More Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England G. G. Shan Abstract: The paper investigates the applicability of corpus linguistics to the construction of a database of intellectual history. Working with the Royal Society Corpus (RSC), it presents a series of corpus queries that can aid with computationally identifying potential instances of communal theory acceptance in England during the period of 1665-1800. These queries allowed to identify a set of noun-adjective pairs potentially synonymous with “accepted theory” and retrieve around 1,400 excerpts potentially indicative of instances of communal theory acceptance. The paper also discusses some strategies for identifying the epistemic agent, as well as the RSC’s place within the broader historical context. Finally, I argue that, in addition to exploring corpus linguistics strategies, methodologies for interpreting computationally retrieved data should also be developed. Read More

From today's featured list Some text