Difference between revisions of "Community:Scientonomy"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 16: Line 16:
 
* Launching a pilot [[Tree of Knowledge Project|tree of knowledge]] project to develop a schema for a historical database, design a respective user interface, as well as to fill that pilot database with some historical data to show how the whole system can actually work.
 
* Launching a pilot [[Tree of Knowledge Project|tree of knowledge]] project to develop a schema for a historical database, design a respective user interface, as well as to fill that pilot database with some historical data to show how the whole system can actually work.
 
* A full-fledged [[Tree of Knowledge Project|tree of knowledge]] website and a comprehensive historical database that would eventually include the theories and methods of all historical mosaics.
 
* A full-fledged [[Tree of Knowledge Project|tree of knowledge]] website and a comprehensive historical database that would eventually include the theories and methods of all historical mosaics.
 +
|Historical Data Precision=Day
 +
|Notable Members=Hakob Barseghyan, Gregory Rupik, Nicholas Overgaard, Paul Patton,
 
|Year Established=2015
 
|Year Established=2015
 
|Still Exists=Yes
 
|Still Exists=Yes
|Notable Members=Hakob Barseghyan, Gregory Rupik, Nicholas Overgaard, Paul Patton,
 
 
|Description=In the years preceding the publication of ''The Laws of Scientific Change''[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] (2012-2015), the community would mostly gather during winter [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar sessions]].     
 
|Description=In the years preceding the publication of ''The Laws of Scientific Change''[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] (2012-2015), the community would mostly gather during winter [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar sessions]].     
  

Revision as of 00:51, 22 August 2016

This scientonomic community was initially formed at the IHPST, University of Toronto around the time of the publication of Barseghyan's The Laws of Scientific Change. The community publishes the Journal of Scientonomy, edits the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy, runs scientonomic seminars and workshops.

The community was established in 2015.

History

In the years preceding the publication of The Laws of Scientific Change1 (2012-2015), the community would mostly gather during winter seminar sessions.

In 2015, the community has started working on the establishment of a proper science of science, Scientonomy.

To that end, the community launched the first Encyclopedia of Scientonomy early in 2016. The aim of this encyclopedia is to track the current state of our knowledge on the process of scientific change, trace and appraise all the proposed modifications, as well as to list all the open questions.

In September of 2016, the community launched the Journal of Scientonomy which aims at publishing original research in the field and collecting all the proposed modifications.

The community's general annual meeting is usually on the first Friday of the winter semester at the University of Toronto. TODO: embed videos of the 2015 and 2016 meetings.

Road-map

The roadmap of the community includes:

  • Organizing annual workshops with the aim of discussing and those proposed modification which didn't yield a common verdict.
  • Launching a pilot tree of knowledge project to develop a schema for a historical database, design a respective user interface, as well as to fill that pilot database with some historical data to show how the whole system can actually work.
  • A full-fledged tree of knowledge website and a comprehensive historical database that would eventually include the theories and methods of all historical mosaics.

Current Mosaic

Accepted Topics

Definitional Topics

Descriptive Topics

Here is the semantic tree of all the descriptive questions that this community currently accepts as legitimate topics for discussion:

Normative Topics

Accepted Theories

Definitions

These are all the definitional topics with their respective definitions currently accepted by the community:
TopicAccepted AnswerAccepted Definition
Acceptance CriteriaAcceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.
Accidental GroupAccidental Group (Overgaard-2017)A group that does not have a collective intentionality.
Authority DelegationAuthority Delegation (Patton-2019)Epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so.
CommunityCommunity (Overgaard-2017)A group that has a collective intentionality.
Compatibility CriteriaCompatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.
CompatibilityCompatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.
DefinitionDefinition (Barseghyan-2018)A statement of the meaning of a term.
Demarcation CriteriaDemarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.
Descriptive TheoryDescriptive Theory (Sebastien-2016)A set of propositions that attempts to describe something.
Epistemic AgentEpistemic Agent (Patton-2019)An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.
Epistemic PresuppositionEpistemic Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)A theory is said to be an epistemic presupposition of a question for some agent, iff the agent accepts that accepting any direct answer to the question will necessitate accepting the theory.
ErrorError (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)An epistemic agent is said to commit an error if the agent accepts a theory that should not have been accepted given that agent’s employed method.
Explicable-ImplicitExplicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.
ExplicitExplicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.
GroupGroup (Overgaard-2017)Two or more people who share any characteristic.
Hierarchical Authority DelegationHierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.
History of Scientific ChangeHistory of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.
ImplicitImplicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Not explicit.
Individual LevelIndividual Level (Barseghyan-2015)The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.
InexplicableInexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018)Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.
Logical PresuppositionLogical Presupposition (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)A theory is said to be a logical presupposition of a question, iff the theory is logically entailed by any direct answer to the question.
MethodMethod (Barseghyan-2018)A set of criteria for theory evaluation.
MethodologyMethodology (Barseghyan-2018)A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.
Mosaic MergeMosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015)A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.
Mosaic SplitMosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015)A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.
Multiple Authority DelegationMultiple Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agent.
Mutual Authority DelegationMutual Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A.
Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationNon-Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x.
Norm EmploymentNorm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.
Normative TheoryNormative Theory (Sebastien-2016)A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something.
One-sided Authority DelegationOne-sided Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)Epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A.
Outcome InconclusiveOutcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.
Outcome Not SatisfiedOutcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
Outcome SatisfiedOutcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
Procedural MethodProcedural Method (Barseghyan-2015)A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.
Question AcceptanceQuestion Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018)A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry.
QuestionQuestion (Rawleigh-2018)A topic of inquiry.
Scientific ChangeScientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)Any change in the scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.
Scientific MosaicScientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018)A set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by an epistemic agent.
ScientonomyScientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual general mechanism of scientific change.
Singular Authority DelegationSingular Authority Delegation (Patton-2019)Epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent.
Social LevelSocial Level (Barseghyan-2015)The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.
Substantive MethodSubstantive Method (Barseghyan-2015)A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.
Theory AcceptanceTheory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2018)A theory is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if it is taken as the best available answer to its respective question.
Theory PursuitTheory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.
Theory UseTheory Use (Barseghyan-2015)A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.
TheoryTheory (Sebastien-2016)A set of propositions.

Descriptive Theories

These are all the descriptive topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:
TopicAccepted AnswerAnswer's FormulationAnswer Type
Changeability of the Scientific MosaicDogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.Complete
Compatibility of Mosaic ElementsCompatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.Complete
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific ChangeUnderdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible. Complete
Mechanism of CompatibilityThe Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.Complete
Mechanism of Error RejectionError Rejection by Replacement (Machado-Marques-Patton-2021)The handling of instances of scientific error is consistent with the theory rejection theorem; it involves a replacement of an erroneously accepted theory either with a first- or second-order proposition.Complete
Mechanism of Method EmploymentThe Third Law (Sebastien-2016)A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.Complete
Mechanism of Method RejectionMethod Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.Complete
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitNecessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment. Complete
Mechanism of Norm EmploymentThe Third Law (Sebastien-2016)A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeMethodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)If a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeMethod Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with the method become employed.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeNecessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Split Due to Inconclusiveness theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two. When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible. When a mosaic split is a result of the acceptance of only one theory, it can only be a result of inconclusive theory assessment. Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeUnderdetermined Method Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Underdetermined Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015)
Transitions from one state of the mosaic to another are not necessarily deterministic. Scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process. The process of method change is not necessarily deterministic: employed methods are by no means the only possible implementations of abstract requirements. The process of theory change is not necessarily deterministic: there may be cases when both a theory's acceptance and its unacceptance are equally possible. Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeThe First Law (Barseghyan-2015)An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeDogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)If an accepted theory is taken as the final truth, it will always remain accepted; no new theory on the subject can ever be accepted.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific ChangeTheory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic ElementsThe First Law (Barseghyan-2015)An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for MethodsThe First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Normative TheoriesThe First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for TheoriesThe First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015)An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.Complete
Mechanism of Theory AcceptanceThe Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.Complete
Necessary Epistemic ElementsNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Necessary MethodsNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Complete
Necessary Normative TheoriesNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Necessary TheoriesNecessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.Partial
Ontology of Scientific ChangeTheory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.Partial
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track RecordResponse to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)The failures of past theories of scientific change do not imply the inevitability of future failure or that the enterprise in inherently unsound.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific MethodResponse to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy does not postulate the existence of a universal and unchanging method of science; thus the fact that methods of science are changeable is not detrimental to the prospects of scientonomy.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing PermanentResponse to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change.Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social ConstructionResponse to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015)Science can be said to be socially constructed in several different senses (e.g. the contingency, nominalist, and reducibility theses). None of these preclude the possibility of scientonomy.Complete
Possibility of ScientonomyPossibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.Complete
Pursuit as AcceptancePursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.Complete
Role of Methodology in Scientific ChangeMethodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.Complete
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific ChangeSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Partial
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory AcceptanceSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.Complete
Status of Technological KnowledgeTechnological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018)Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method EmploymentAsynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)The employment of new methods can be but is not necessarily a result of the acceptance of new theories.Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method RejectionSynchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.Complete
Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) is Not Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)The law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 is not tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) is Not Tautological (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 is not tautological.Complete
Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) is Tautological (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)Harder's zeroth law is tautological.Complete
The Paradox of Normative PropositionsResolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016)The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from all accepted theories, but only from some.Complete
Theory Assessment OutcomesTheory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.Complete

Normative Theories

These are all the normative topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:
TopicAccepted AnswerAnswer's FormulationAnswer Type
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant FactsAssessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.Complete
Assessment of ScientonomyAssessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.Partial
Indicators of Method EmploymentIndicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence.Complete
Indicators of Theory AcceptanceIndicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Indicators of theory acceptance are textual sources that represent the position of a scientific community regarding a theory at some time. Useful indicators are contextual to time and culture. They might include such things as encyclopedias, textbooks, university curricula, and minutes of association meetings.Complete
Scientonomic WorkflowScientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by:
  1. documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge knowledge in an online encyclopedia;
  2. scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats;
  3. publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions;
  4. evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.
Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and PursuitScope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and AppraisalScope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and NormativeScope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and ImplicitScope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and SocialScope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleScope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found. Complete
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)It is implicit in the definition of scientonomy that it should explain changes in the scientific mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods, which are changes at the level of the scientific community. It need not account for changes at the level of the beliefs of individuals.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)
Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)
Scientonomy should account for all changes to the scientific mosaic, regardless of which fields of inquiry they concern. Scientonomy should provide explanations of all kinds of changes to the scientific mosaic at all scales from the most minor transitions to the most major. Scientonomy ought to account for all scientific changes for all time periods where a scientific mosaic can be found. Partial
Scope of ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Implicit and Explicit (Barseghyan-2017)A scientonomic theory ought to distinguish between explicit statements of methodology, and actual employed methods, which may sometimes be implicit. It ought to account for employed methods, whether they correspond with stated methodology, or are purely implicit.Partial
Workflow - Goals of Peer ReviewGoals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.Complete
Workflow - Handling Ripple EffectsHandling Ripple Effects - Editorial House Keeping (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)The encyclopedia editors should be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. If the additional required changes are implicit in the suggested modification, the editors should create and alter encyclopedia pages to ensure that the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge is properly documented; if it is conceivable to accept the modification without accepting the ripple effect change in question, the editors should register these changes as new suggested modifications so that the community can discuss and evaluate them in an orderly fashion.Complete
Workflow - Publishing Modification CommentsPublishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)The discussions concerning a suggested modification are to be published once a communal verdict is available. The discussions are to be published in the journal as special commentary articles co-authored by all participants of the discussion or in special edited collections.Complete
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting ModificationsAllow Modification Reformulations (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)The commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations in the comments. By default, the new formulation should bear the original author’s name, unless the author decides to give credit to those who significantly contributed to the new reformulation.Complete

Open Questions

Here are all the open questions currently accepted by the community:
TopicTopic TypeQuestionFormulated Year
Acceptance CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is acceptance criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Accidental GroupDefinitionalWhat is accidental group? How should it be defined?2016
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant FactsNormativeWhat classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?2015
Associations of CommunityDescriptiveHow is the class of community associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between communities, as well as between a community and instances of other classes?2016
Associations of QuestionDescriptiveHow is the class of question associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between questions, as well as between a question and instances of other classes?2018
Associations of TheoryDescriptiveHow is the class of theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between theories, as well as between a theory and instances of other classes?2015
Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Changeability of the Scientific MosaicDescriptiveUnder what circumstances does scientific change become impossible?2015
CommunityDefinitionalWhat is community? How should it be defined?2016
CompatibilityDefinitionalWhat is compatibility? How should it be defined?2018
Compatibility CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is compatibility criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Compatibility of Mosaic ElementsDescriptiveAre all elements within a mosaic compatible with one another?2018
DefinitionDefinitionalWhat is definition? How should it be defined?2018
Demarcation CriteriaDefinitionalWhat is demarcation criteria? How should it be defined?2015
Descriptive TheoryDefinitionalWhat is descriptive theory? How should it be defined?2015
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific ChangeDescriptiveIs the process of scientific change a strictly deterministic process? Will two unconnected communities experience a similar historical series of changes in their individual mosaics?2015
Epistemic AgentDefinitionalWhat is epistemic agent? How should it be defined?2018
Epistemic PresuppositionDefinitionalWhat is epistemic presupposition? How should it be defined?2019
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards epistemic elements?2015
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative TheoriesDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards normative theories?2016
Epistemic Stances Towards QuestionsDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards questions?2018
Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesDescriptiveWhat types of epistemic stances can be taken by epistemic agents towards theories?2015
ErrorDefinitionalWhat is error? How should it be defined?2019
Existence of CommunityDescriptiveDoes a community exist?2016
Existence of DefinitionDescriptiveDoes a definition exist?2018
Existence of Descriptive TheoryDescriptiveDoes a descriptive theory exist?2015
Existence of Epistemic AgentDescriptiveDoes an epistemic agent exist?2018
Existence of Epistemic CommunityDescriptiveDoes an epistemic community exist?2016
Existence of Epistemic ElementDescriptiveDoes an epistemic element exist?2015
Existence of Epistemic PresuppositionDescriptiveDoes an epistemic presupposition exist?2019
Existence of Epistemic StanceDescriptiveDoes an epistemic stance exist?2015
Existence of Individual Epistemic AgentDescriptiveDoes an individual epistemic agent exist?2019
Existence of Logical PresuppositionDescriptiveDoes a logical presupposition exist?2021
Existence of Normative TheoryDescriptiveDoes a normative theory exist?2015
Existence of QuestionDescriptiveDoes a question exist?2018
Existence of Question AcceptanceDescriptiveDoes question acceptance exist?2018
Existence of TheoryDescriptiveDoes a theory exist?2015
Existence of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveDoes theory acceptance exist?2015
Explicable-ImplicitDefinitionalWhat is explicable-implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
ExplicitDefinitionalWhat is explicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
GroupDefinitionalWhat is group? How should it be defined?2016
Hierarchical Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is hierarchical authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
History of Scientific ChangeDefinitionalWhat is history of scientific change? How should it be defined?2015
ImplicitDefinitionalWhat is implicit knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
Indicators of Method EmploymentNormativeWhat kind of historical markers could be taken as indicators that a method was employed by an agent at a given time?2015
Indicators of Theory AcceptanceNormativeWhat types of historical markers can be taken as indicative that a theory was accepted by an agent at a given time?2015
Individual LevelDefinitionalWhat is individual level? How should it be defined?2015
InexplicableDefinitionalWhat is inexplicable knowledge? How should it be defined?2018
Logical PresuppositionDefinitionalWhat is logical presupposition? How should it be defined?2021
Mechanism of CompatibilityDescriptiveUnder what conditions can two elements coexist in the same mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Error RejectionDescriptiveWhen epistemic agent discover that a theory was accepted erroneously, they often reject the theory; the theory rejection theorem suggests that those propositions are replaced by something. What are they replaced by?2018
Mechanism of Method EmploymentDescriptiveHow do methods become employed by an epistemic agent?2015
Mechanism of Method RejectionDescriptiveWhen does an employed method become rejected?2016
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitDescriptiveWhat happens to a mosaic when two or more similar theories are considered equally acceptable by a scientific community? Under what conditions does a mosaic split occur? What happens to a mosaic when it is transformed into two or more mosaics?2015
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic ElementsDescriptiveWhat makes the epistemic elements of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for MethodsDescriptiveWhat makes the methods of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for TheoriesDescriptiveWhat makes the theories of an agent's mosaic continue to remain in the mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveHow do theories become accepted into a mosaic?2015
Mechanism of Theory RejectionDescriptive2015
MethodDefinitionalWhat is method? How should it be defined?2015
MethodologyDefinitionalWhat is methodology? How should it be defined?2015
Mosaic MergeDefinitionalWhat is mosaic merge? How should it be defined?2015
Mosaic SplitDefinitionalWhat is mosaic split? How should it be defined?2015
Multiple Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is multiple authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Mutual Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is mutual authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Nature of AppraisalDescriptive2015
Necessary MethodsDescriptiveAre there methods that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What methods, if any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?2015
Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is non-hierarchical authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Norm EmploymentDefinitionalWhat is norm employment? How should it be defined?2018
Normative TheoryDefinitionalWhat is normative theory? How should it be defined?2015
One-sided Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is one-sided authority delegation? How should it be defined?2016
Outcome InconclusiveDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome inconclusive be defined?2015
Outcome Not SatisfiedDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome not satisfied be defined?2017
Outcome SatisfiedDefinitionalHow should the theory assessment outcome satisfied be defined?2017
Possibility of ScientonomyDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track RecordDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible given the bad track record of previous attempts to create a general theory of scientific change?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific MethodDescriptiveHow can there be scientonomy if the methods of science are changeable?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing PermanentDescriptiveHow can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?2015
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social ConstructionDescriptiveHow is scientonomy possible if science is a social construction?2015
Procedural MethodDefinitionalWhat is procedural method? How should it be defined?2015
Pursuit as AcceptanceDescriptiveIs the category of theory pursuit really distinct from that of theory acceptance?2018
QuestionDefinitionalWhat is question? How should it be defined?2018
Question AcceptanceDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a question is accepted? How should question acceptance be defined?2018
Role of Methodology in Scientific ChangeDescriptiveWhat role do methodologies play in scientific change? Are methodologies capable of affecting employed methods?2015
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of theory acceptance?2015
Scientific ChangeDefinitionalWhat is scientific change? How should it be defined?2015
Scientific MosaicDefinitionalWhat is scientific mosaic? How should it be defined?2015
Scientonomic WorkflowNormativeHow should changes in the accepted body of scientonomic knowledge be introduced? What are the steps and procedures of the scientonomic workflow?2016
ScientonomyDefinitionalWhat is scientonomy? How should it be defined?2016
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and PursuitNormativeHow ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and AppraisalNormativeOught the process of scientific change be viewed from the perspective of theory construction or that of theory appraisal?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and NormativeNormativeOught a scientonomic theory be descriptive or normative?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and ImplicitNormativeOught a scientonomic theory account for only changes to explicit elements of the mosaic or must it also deal with changes in implicit elements that are not openly stated?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and SocialNormativeOught a scientonomic theory account for changes in the mosaics of individual scientists, the mosaics of communities, or both?2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleNormativeFor changes in the mosaic of what time period ought a scientonomic theory account? For changes in which fields of inquiry ought it to account? Ought it deal only in grand changes, or should it account for minor changes as well?2015
Singular Authority DelegationDefinitionalWhat is singular authority delegation? How should it be defined?2017
Social LevelDefinitionalWhat is social level? How should it be defined?2015
Static vs. Dynamic MethodsDescriptiveAre there any methods which are immune to change?2015
Status of Technological KnowledgeDescriptiveWhat is the status of technological knowledge in the scientific mosaic? Can technological knowledge be accepted into a mosaic?2015
Substantive MethodDefinitionalWhat is substantive method? How should it be defined?2015
Subtypes of Epistemic AgentDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic agent?2018
Subtypes of Epistemic ElementDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic element?2015
Subtypes of Epistemic StanceDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of an epistemic stance?2015
Subtypes of Normative TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a normative theory?2015
Subtypes of TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the subtypes of a theory?2015
Supertypes of CompatibilityDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of compatibility?2018
Supertypes of DefinitionDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a definition?2018
Supertypes of Descriptive TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a descriptive theory?2015
Supertypes of Epistemic CommunityDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an epistemic community?2016
Supertypes of ExplicitDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an explicit?2018
Supertypes of ImplicitDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an implicit?2018
Supertypes of Individual Epistemic AgentDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of an individual epistemic agent?2019
Supertypes of MethodDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a method?2015
Supertypes of Norm EmploymentDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of norm employment?2018
Supertypes of Normative TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a normative theory?2015
Supertypes of QuestionDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a question?2018
Supertypes of Question AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of question acceptance?2018
Supertypes of TheoryDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a theory?2015
Supertypes of Theory AcceptanceDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory acceptance?2015
Supertypes of Theory PursuitDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of a theory pursuit?2015
Supertypes of Theory UseDescriptiveWhat are the supertypes of theory use?2015
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method EmploymentDescriptiveWhich factors influence the process of method employment? Do new methods become accepted simultaneously with the acceptance of a theory?2015
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method RejectionDescriptiveWhen a method is rejected, must it be the case that a theory has also been rejected?2015
Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)DescriptiveIs the law of compatibility suggested by Fraser and Sarwar in 2018 a tautology?2018
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)DescriptiveIs Barseghyan's original second law a tautology?2013
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)DescriptiveIs the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017 a tautology?2017
Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)DescriptiveIs Harder's zeroth law a tautology?2016
The Paradox of Normative PropositionsDescriptiveIf methodologies are themselves theories that can be accepted by a community, then how can methods be deductive consequences of accepted theories, given that historically employed methods and accepted methodologies have often been inconsistent with one another?2014
TheoryDefinitionalWhat is theory? How should it be defined?2015
Theory AcceptanceDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is accepted? How should theory acceptance be defined?2015
Theory Assessment OutcomesDescriptiveWhat outcomes can possibly obtain as a result of an assessment of a theory by a method? What is the complete list of theory assessment outcomes?2015
Theory PursuitDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is pursued? How should theory pursuit be defined?2015
Theory UseDefinitionalWhat does it mean to say that a theory is used? How should theory use be defined?2015
Workflow - Goals of Peer ReviewNormativeShould peer reviewers evaluate a submitted paper for the pursuitworthiness or acceptability of the content of the paper?2019
Workflow - Handling Ripple EffectsNormative2019
Workflow - Publishing Modification CommentsNormativeShould the discussions concerning a suggested modification be published? If so, when and how should they be published?2019
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting ModificationsNormativeAre the commentators of suggested modifications allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations?2019


References

  1. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.