Community:Scientonomy

Scientonomy community was initially formed at the IHPST, University of Toronto around the time of the publication of Barseghyan's The Laws of Scientific Change1 with the main goal of advancing our knowledge of scientific change in a piecemeal and transparent fashion and establishing an empirical science of science, scientonomy. The community publishes the Journal of Scientonomy, edits the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy, organizes 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 started working on the establishment of a new empirical study of science, Scientonomy. To that end, the community launched the first Encyclopedia of Scientonomy early in 2016 with the aim of tracking the current state of communal knowledge concerning the process of scientific change, tracing and appraising the proposed modifications, as well as documenting open questions.

Hakob Barseghyan showcasing the workflow

In September of 2016, the community launched the Journal of Scientonomy with the first issue published in 2017. An essential component of the scientonomic workflow, the journal aims at publishing original research in the field and collecting all the proposed modifications.

In 2017-18, the community was testing and revising the new scientonomic workflow geared towards the piecemeal and transparent advancement of our communal knowledge.

In 2019, the community organized its inaugural conference which featured Hasok Chang, Jutta Schickore, and Lee McIntyre as its keynotes. The proceedings of the conference are published in 2022.2

In 2019 and 2020, the community developed a diagrammatic notation for visualizing epistemic entities and relations. Various visualization techniques were developed into a systematic diagrammatic notation in May 2019, during the Visualizing Worldviews project funded by Jackman Humanities Institute as part of their Scholars-in-Residence program.3 In the May 2020 edition of the program, the notation was applied to high-profile present-day debates on intelligent design, gender, climate change, and race.

The community holds its annual meetings in January or February. These annual meetings are traditionally hosted by the University of Toronto's Faculty Club.

Road-map

Nicholas Overgaard outlines The Tree of Knowledge project

The road-map of the community includes:

Refine the systematic ontology of scientific change that will be at the backbone of the database of intellectual history. A series of conferences and workshops will be organized with the aim of discussing and evaluating proposed modifications to the current ontology.
Launching a pilot tree of knowledge project to develop the schema for a historical database, design the respective website, as well as to fill the database with sample high-quality historical data to test the platform and showcase its potential to the broader community of historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science.
Creating a full-fledged tree of knowledge website and a comprehensive historical database that would eventually document belief systems of diverse epistemic agents across time periods, field of inquiry, and geographic regions.

Current Mosaic

Accepted Topics

Definitional Topics

This is the list of all definitional questions that this community currently accepts as legitimate topics for discussion:

Descriptive Topics

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

Normative Topics

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

Accepted Theories

Definitions and Ontology

Here is the summary of the ontology and definitions currently accepted by the community:

Term	Definition	Upper Class	Existence	Subtypes	Supertypes	Associations
Acceptance Criteria	Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is acceptable or unacceptable.	Endurant	Exists			An acceptance criterion is always part of some method.
Accidental Group	Accidental Group (Overgaard-2017): A group that does not have a collective intentionality.	Endurant	Exists		Group
Authority Delegation	Authority 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.	Association	Exists	On the basis of cardinality: Singular Authority Delegation and Multiple Authority Delegation. On the basis of reciprocity: Mutual Authority Delegation and One-sided Authority Delegation.
Community	Community (Overgaard-2017): A group that has a collective intentionality.	Endurant	Exists		Group	A community can delegate authority to another community.
Compatibility	Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): The ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Compatibility Criteria	Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018): Criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.	Endurant	Exists			A compatibility criterion is always part of some method.
Core Question	Core Question (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core question of a discipline is a question identified in the discipline’s delineating theory as definitive of the discipline.	Endurant	Exists
Core Theory	Core Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A core theory of a discipline is a theory presupposed by the discipline’s core questions.	Endurant	Exists
Definition	Definition (Barseghyan-2018): A statement of the meaning of a term.	Endurant	Exists		Theory
Delineating Theory	Delineating Theory (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A second-order theory identifying the set of core questions of a discipline.	Endurant	Exists			A discipline has one delineating theory.
Demarcation Criteria	Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015): Criteria for determining whether a theory is scientific or unscientific.	Endurant	Exists			A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Descriptive Theory	Descriptive Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to describe something.	Endurant	Exists		Theory
Discipline	Discipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is characterized by (1) a non-empty set of core questions Q and (2) the delineating theory stating that Q are the core questions of the discipline.	Endurant	Exists			A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has one delineating theory. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines.
Discipline Acceptance	Discipline Acceptance (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline is said to be accepted by an epistemic agent if that agent accepts the core questions specified in the discipline’s delineating theory as well as the delineating theory itself.	Perdurant	Exists
Element Decay		Perdurant		Theory Decay
Epistemic Action		Perdurant
Epistemic Agent	Epistemic Agent (Patton-2019): An agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.	Endurant	Exists	Epistemic Community and Individual Epistemic Agent		An epistemic agent can delegate authority to another epistemic agent. An epistemic agent can rely on any number of epistemic tools, while an epistemic tool can be relied on by one-to-many agent.
Epistemic Community		Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Agent
Epistemic Element		Endurant	Exists	Question and Theory
Epistemic Presupposition	Epistemic 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.	Association	Exists
Epistemic Stance		Perdurant	Exists	Theory Use, Theory Pursuit, Question Acceptance, Norm Employment, Compatibility and Theory Acceptance
Epistemic Tool	Epistemic Tool (Patton-2019): A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent iff there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	Endurant	Exists			An epistemic agent can rely on any number of epistemic tools, while an epistemic tool can be relied on by one-to-many agent.
Error	Error (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.	Perdurant	Exists
Explicable-Implicit	Explicable-Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that hasn’t been openly formulated by the agent.	Quality			Implicit
Explicit	Explicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Propositional knowledge that has been openly formulated by the agent.	Quality
Global Epistemic Action		Perdurant
Group	Group (Overgaard-2017): Two or more people who share any characteristic.	Endurant	Exists	Community and Accidental Group
Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Hierarchical Authority Delegation (Patton-2019): A sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x.	Association	Exists		Multiple Authority Delegation
History of Scientific Change	History of Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015): A descriptive discipline that attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the scientific mosaic.	Endurant
Implicit	Implicit (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Not explicit.	Quality		Explicable-Implicit and Inexplicable
Individual Epistemic Agent		Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Agent
Individual Level	Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.	Endurant
Inexplicable	Inexplicable (Mirkin-Barseghyan-2018): Non-propositional knowledge, i.e. knowledge that cannot, even in principle, be formulated as a set of propositions.	Quality			Implicit
Local Action Availability		Endurant
Local Epistemic Action		Perdurant
Logical Presupposition	Logical 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.	Association	Exists
Method	Method (Barseghyan-2018): A set of criteria for theory evaluation.	Endurant	Exists	Substantive Method and Procedural Method	Normative Theory	An acceptance criterion is always part of some method. A compatibility criterion is always part of some method. A demarcation criterion is always part of some method.
Method Hierarchy		Endurant
Methodology	Methodology (Barseghyan-2018): A normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.	Endurant	Exists
Model		Endurant
Mosaic Merge	Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where two mosaics turn into one united mosaic.	Endurant	Exists
Mosaic Split	Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015): A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.	Perdurant	Exists
Multiple Authority Delegation	Multiple 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.	Association	Exists	Hierarchical Authority Delegation and Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Authority Delegation
Mutual Authority Delegation	Mutual 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.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Non-Epistemic Community		Endurant
Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Non-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.	Association	Exists		Multiple Authority Delegation
Norm Employment	Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018): A norm is said to be employed if its requirements constitute the actual expectations of an epistemic agent.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Normative Theory	Normative Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions that attempts to prescribe something.	Endurant	Exists	Method	Theory
One-sided Authority Delegation	One-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.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Outcome Inconclusive	Outcome Inconclusive (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): It is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.	Quality
Outcome Not Satisfied	Outcome Not Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	Quality
Outcome Satisfied	Outcome Satisfied (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017): The theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.	Quality
Procedural Method	Procedural Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions.	Endurant	Exists		Method
Question	Question (Rawleigh-2018): A topic of inquiry.	Endurant	Exists		Epistemic Element	A discipline has at least one core question. A discipline has at least one question. Each question can be included in any number disciplines. A question can have subquestions. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Question Acceptance	Question Acceptance (Rawleigh-2018): A question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Question Pursuit		Perdurant
Reason		Endurant
Scientific Change	Scientific 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.	Perdurant	Exists
Scientific Community		Endurant	Exists
Scientific Mosaic	Scientific Mosaic (Rawleigh-2022): A model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent.	Endurant	Exists
Singular Authority Delegation	Singular 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.	Association	Exists		Authority Delegation
Social Level	Social Level (Barseghyan-2015): The level of the scientific community and its mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods.	Endurant
Sociocultural Factors		Endurant	Exists
Subdiscipline	Subdiscipline (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A discipline A is a subdiscipline of another discipline B, iff the set of questions of A, Q_A, is a proper subset of the questions of B, Q_B, i.e. Q_A ⸦ Q_B.	Endurant	Exists
Subquestion	Subquestion (Patton-Al-Zayadi-2021): A question Q is a subquestion of another question Q’, iff any direct answer to Q is also a partial answer to Q’.	Association	Exists
Substantive Method	Substantive Method (Barseghyan-2015): A method which presupposes at least one contingent proposition.	Endurant	Exists		Method
Theory	Theory (Sebastien-2016): A set of propositions.	Endurant	Exists	Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory and Definition	Epistemic Element	A discipline can have any number of theories. Each theory can be included into any number disciplines. A question can presuppose theories. A theory is an answer to a question.
Theory Acceptance	Theory 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.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Theory Decay		Perdurant			Element Decay
Theory Pursuit	Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be pursued if it is considered worthy of further development.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Theory Use	Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015): A theory is said to be used if it is taken as an adequate tool for practical application.	Perdurant	Exists		Epistemic Stance
Tool Reliance	Tool Reliance (Patton-2019): An epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool iff there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	Association	Exists

Dynamics

These are all the descriptive topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:

Topic	Accepted Answer	Answer's Formulation	Directness	Completeness
Accepted Methodology and Theory Pursuit			None	None
Applicability of Scientonomy to Theories as Models			None	None
Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals			None	None
Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change			None	None
Application of Scientonomy to Other Fields			None	None
Application of Scientonomy to Philosophy of Science			None	None
Changeability of the Scientific Mosaic	Dogmatism 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.	Direct	Complete
Compatibility of Mosaic Elements	Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	At any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other.	Direct	Complete
Deducibility in Method Employment	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Delegation of Authority to Artifacts			None	None
Delegation of Authority to Individuals			None	None
Delegation of Authority to Past Communities			None	None
Deriving Methods from an Empty Set			None	None
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific Change	Underdetermined 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.	Direct	Complete
Existence of Method Hierarchies			None	None
Hierarchy of Theories			None	None
Implementation vs. Employment of Methods	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Indicators of Inconclusiveness	Necessary 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.	Superanswer	Complete
Mechanism of Compatibility	The 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.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Discipline Acceptance			None	None
Mechanism of Discipline Rejection			None	None
Mechanism of Error Rejection	Error 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.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Method Employment	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Method Rejection	Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023)	A norm becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the norm become part of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Mechanism of Method Rejection	Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Mosaic Split	Necessary 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.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Norm Employment	The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Normative Theory Rejection	Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023)	A norm becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the norm become part of the mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Question Rejection	Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023)	A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become part of the mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023)	A question becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the question become part of the mosaic.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	The 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023)	A norm becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the norm become part of the mosaic.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Sociocultural 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	The 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Methodology 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)	An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	A theory becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the theory become part of the mosaic.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Underdetermined 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Necessary 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Change	Dogmatism 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic Elements	The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)	An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Methods	The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	An employed norm remains employed in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Superanswer	Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Normative Theories	The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	An employed norm remains employed in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Questions	The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)	An accepted question remains accepted in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Theories	The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	An accepted theory remains accepted in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance	The 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.	Direct	Complete
Mechanism of Theory Pursuit			None	None
Mechanism of Theory Rejection	Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	A theory becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the theory become part of the mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Methodology and Methods	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Methods Shaping Theory Construction			None	None
Methods and Technical Research Tools	Technological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018)	Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Necessary Descriptive Theories			None	None
Necessary Epistemic Elements	Necessary 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Necessary Logic			None	None
Necessary Methods	Necessary 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.	Direct	Complete
Necessary Normative Theories	Necessary 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Necessary Questions			None	None
Necessary Theories	Necessary 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Normative Effects of Scientonomy			None	None
Philosophy of Science - Demarcation			None	None
Philosophy of Science - Relativism			None	None
Philosophy of Science - Scientific Progress			None	None
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track Record	Response 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.	Direct	Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method	Response 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.	Direct	Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - Preconditions	Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.	Superanswer	Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent	Response 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.	Direct	Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction	Response 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.	Direct	Complete
Possibility of Scientonomy	Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Scientonomy is possible because the process of scientific change exhibits lawful general regularities.	Direct	Complete
Pursuit as Acceptance	Pursuit as Distinct from Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Pursuit is a distinct epistemic stance that is not reducible to or expressible through acceptance.	Direct	Complete
Role of Ethics in Scientific Change			None	None
Role of Methodology in Scientific Change	Methodology 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.	Direct	Complete
Role of Non-Social and Environmental Factors in Scientific Change			None	None
Role of Practical Considerations in Scientific Change			None	None
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment			None	None
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Mosaic Split	Necessary 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.	Superanswer	Complete
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Question Acceptance			None	None
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change	Sociocultural 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance	Sociocultural 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.	Direct	Complete
Role of Used Theories in Method Employment	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Static vs. Dynamic Methods	Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	All substantive methods are necessarily dynamic. All procedural methods are necessarily static.	Direct	Complete
Status of Impossible Abstract Requirements	The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022)	A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.	Superanswer	Complete
Status of Reasons	The 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.	Superanswer	Complete
Status of Tacit Theories			None	None
Status of Technological Knowledge	Technological Knowledge as Part of Mosaic (Mirkin-2018)	Propositional technological knowledge can be accepted and be part of a mosaic.	Direct	Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment	Asynchronism 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.	Direct	Complete
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Rejection	Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.	Direct	Complete
Tautological Status of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)			None	None
Tautological Status of Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023)			None	None
Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)			None	None
Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015)			None	None
Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)			None	None
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.	Direct	Complete
Tautological Status of The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)			None	None
Tautological Status of The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)	The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)	Barseghyan's original second law is tautological.	Direct	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.	Direct	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.	Direct	Complete
Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)			None	None
Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)			None	None
The Necessity of Intercommunication for Community			None	None
The Necessity of Language in Community			None	None
The Paradox of Normative Propositions	Resolution 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.	Direct	Complete
The Status of Holism and Ripple Effect			None	None
Theory vs. Method Compatibility	The 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.	Superanswer	Complete

Norms

These are all the normative topics with their respective theories currently accepted by the community:

Topic	Accepted Answer	Answer's Formulation	Directness	Completeness
Anomalies	Assessment 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.	Superanswer	Complete
Assessment of Scientonomy - Method			None	None
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts	Assessment 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.	Direct	Complete
Assessment of Scientonomy	Assessment 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Indicators of Communities			None	None
Indicators of Method Employment	Indicators 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.	Direct	Complete
Indicators of Question Acceptance			None	None
Indicators of Theory Acceptance	Indicators 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.	Direct	Complete
Indicators of Violation			None	None
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes			None	None
Scientonomic Workflow	Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by: documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge in an online encyclopedia; scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats; publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions; evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Mosaic Formation			None	None
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale	Scope 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.	Direct	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy - Tracing Implicit and Explicit	Scope 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.	Superanswer	Complete
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Scope of Scientonomy	Scope 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.	Subanswer	Partial
Workflow - Closure Mechanism	Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Scientonomic knowledge is best advanced by: documenting the body of accepted communal knowledge in an online encyclopedia; scrutinizing this accepted knowledge, identifying its flaws, and formulating open questions at seminars, conferences, publications, and other in-person or online formats; publishing journal articles that propose modifications to our current knowledge and documenting these suggestions; evaluating the suggested modifications with the goal of reaching a communal consensus and changing the respective encyclopedia pages when a verdict is reached.	Superanswer	Complete
Workflow - Goals of Peer Review	Goals of Peer Review - Pursuitworthiness (Shaw-Barseghyan-2019)	The goal of peer reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.	Direct	Complete
Workflow - Handling Ripple Effects	Handling 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.	Direct	Complete
Workflow - Publishing Modification Comments	Publishing Modification Comments (Shaw-Barseghyan-Yan-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.	Direct	Complete
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting Modifications	Allow 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.	Direct	Complete

Open Questions

Here are all the open questions currently accepted by the community:

Topic	Topic Type	Question	Formulated Year
Accepted Methodology and Theory Pursuit	Descriptive	Is there any connection between an accepted methodology and the pursuit of a theory?	2016
Applicability of Scientonomy to Theories as Models	Descriptive	Is the theory of scientific change applicable to theories construed as sets of models, or in ways that reject their purely formal characterization?	2017
Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change	Descriptive	To which mosaics do the laws of scientific change apply? Do they apply only to scientific communities, to all epistemic communities, or all communities whatsoever (including non-epistemic communities)? Do these patterns emerge and exist in communities who gather together to study the world?	2017
Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals	Descriptive	Do the scientonomic laws apply to individual epistemic agents?	2019
Application of Scientonomy to Other Fields	Descriptive	What is the broader relevance of scientonomy? How can scientonomy inform other fields of inquiry?	2018
Application of Scientonomy to Philosophy of Science	Descriptive	How can the findings of scientonomy be applied to answer the traditional questions of the philosophy of science?	2018
Assessment of Scientonomy - Method	Normative	What method ought to be employed to assess a scientonomic theory?	2015
Associations of Accidental Group	Descriptive	How is the class of accidental group associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between accidental groups, as well as between an accidental group and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Authority Delegation	Descriptive	How is the class of authority delegation associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of authority delegation, as well as between authority delegation and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Compatibility	Descriptive	How is the class of compatibility associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of compatibility, as well as between compatibility and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Core Question	Descriptive	How is the class of core question associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between core questions, as well as between a core question and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Core Theory	Descriptive	How is the class of core theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between core theories, as well as between a core theory and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Definition	Descriptive	How is the class of definition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between definitions, as well as between a definition and instances of other classes?	2018
Associations of Descriptive Theory	Descriptive	How is the class of descriptive theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between descriptive theories, as well as between a descriptive theory and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Discipline Acceptance	Descriptive	How is the class of discipline acceptance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of discipline acceptance, as well as between discipline acceptance and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Element Decay	Descriptive	How is the class of element decay associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of element decay, as well as between element decay and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Epistemic Action	Descriptive	How is the class of epistemic action associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic actions, as well as between an epistemic action and instances of other classes?	2023
Associations of Epistemic Community	Descriptive	How is the class of epistemic community associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic communities, as well as between an epistemic community and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Epistemic Element	Descriptive	How is the class of epistemic element associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic elements, as well as between an epistemic element and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Epistemic Presupposition	Descriptive	How is the class of epistemic presupposition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic presuppositions, as well as between an epistemic presupposition and instances of other classes?	2019
Associations of Epistemic Stance	Descriptive	How is the class of epistemic stance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between epistemic stances, as well as between an epistemic stance and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Error	Descriptive	How is the class of error associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between errors, as well as between an error and instances of other classes?	2019
Associations of Explicable-Implicit	Descriptive	How is the class of explicable-implicit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between explicable-implicits, as well as between explicable-implicit and instances of other classes?	2018
Associations of Global Epistemic Action	Descriptive	How is the class of global epistemic action associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between global epistemic actions, as well as between a global epistemic action and instances of other classes?	2023
Associations of Group	Descriptive	How is the class of group associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between groups, as well as between a group and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	How is the class of hierarchical authority delegation associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of hierarchical authority delegation, as well as between hierarchical authority delegation and instances of other classes?	2017
Associations of Implicit	Descriptive	How is the class of implicit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between implicits, as well as between implicit and instances of other classes?	2018
Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent	Descriptive	How is the class of individual epistemic agent associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between individual epistemic agents, as well as between an individual epistemic agent and instances of other classes?	2019
Associations of Local Action Availability	Descriptive	How is the class of local action availability associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of local action availability, as well as between local action availability and instances of other classes?	2023
Associations of Local Epistemic Action	Descriptive	How is the class of local epistemic action associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between local epistemic actions, as well as between a local epistemic action and instances of other classes?	2023
Associations of Logical Presupposition	Descriptive	How is the class of logical presupposition associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between logical presuppositions, as well as between a logical presupposition and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Method Hierarchy	Descriptive	How is the class of method hierarchy associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between method hierarchies, as well as between a method hierarchy and instances of other classes?	2019
Associations of Methodology	Descriptive	How is the class of methodology associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between methodologys, as well as between a methodology and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Model	Descriptive	How is the class of model associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between models, as well as between a model and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Mosaic Merge	Descriptive	How is the class of mosaic merge associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between mosaic merges, as well as between a mosaic merge and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Mosaic Split	Descriptive	How is the class of mosaic split associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of mosaic split, as well as between a mosaic split and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Multiple Authority Delegation	Descriptive	How is the class of multiple authority delegation associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between multiple authority delegations, as well as between multiple authority delegation and instances of other classes?	2017
Associations of Non-Epistemic Community	Descriptive	How is the class of non-epistemic community associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between non-epistemic communities, as well as between a non-epistemic community and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	How is the class of non-hierarchical authority delegation associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of non-hierarchical authority delegation, as well as between non-hierarchical authority delegation and instances of other classes?	2017
Associations of Norm Employment	Descriptive	How is the class of norm employment associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of norm employment, as well as between norm employment and instances of other classes?	2018
Associations of Normative Theory	Descriptive	How is the class of normative theory associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between normative theories, as well as between a normative theory and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Procedural Method	Descriptive	How is the class of procedural method associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between procedural methods, as well as between a procedural method and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Question Acceptance	Descriptive	How is the class of question acceptance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of question acceptance, as well as between question acceptance and instances of other classes?	2018
Associations of Question Pursuit	Descriptive	How is the class of question pursuit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of question pursuit, as well as between question pursuit and instances of other classes?	2022
Associations of Reason	Descriptive	How is the class of reason associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between reasons, as well as between a reason and instances of other classes?	2019
Associations of Scientific Change	Descriptive	How is the class of scientific change associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of scientific change, as well as between scientific change and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Scientific Community	Descriptive	How is the class of scientific community associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between scientific communities, as well as between a scientific community and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Scientific Mosaic	Descriptive	How is the class of scientific mosaic associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between scientific mosaics, as well as between a scientific mosaic and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Scientonomy	Descriptive	How is the class of [[Scientonomy\|]] associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between [[Scientonomy\|]], as well as between [[Scientonomy\|]] and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Singular Authority Delegation	Descriptive	How is the class of singular authority delegation associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of singular authority delegation, as well as between singular authority delegation and instances of other classes?	2017
Associations of Sociocultural Factors	Descriptive	How is the class of sociocultural factors associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between sociocultural factorss, as well as between a sociocultural factors and instances of other classes?	2016
Associations of Subdiscipline	Descriptive	How is the class of subdiscipline associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between subdisciplines, as well as between a subdiscipline and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Subquestion	Descriptive	How is the class of subquestion associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between subquestions, as well as between a subquestion and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Substantive Method	Descriptive	How is the class of substantive method associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between substantive methods, as well as between a substantive method and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Theory Acceptance	Descriptive	How is the class of theory acceptance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of theory acceptance, as well as between theory acceptance and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Theory Decay	Descriptive	How is the class of theory decay associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of theory decay, as well as between theory decay and instances of other classes?	2021
Associations of Theory Pursuit	Descriptive	How is the class of theory pursuit associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of pursuit decay, as well as between theory pursuit and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Theory Use	Descriptive	How is the class of theory use associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of theory use, as well as between theory use and instances of other classes?	2015
Associations of Tool Reliance	Descriptive	How is the class of tool reliance associated with other classes (and itself)? What aggregation, composition, or other association relations can exist between instances of tool reliance, as well as between tool reliance and instances of other classes?	2019
Delegation of Authority to Artifacts	Descriptive	Can there be delegation of authority to tools, instruments, other material objects, or to computer software?	2016
Delegation of Authority to Individuals	Descriptive	Can there be delegation of authority to individuals?	2018
Delegation of Authority to Past Communities	Descriptive	Is it possible for a community to delegate authority to a community that no longer exists? Can a community delegate authority to a past expert?	2017
Deriving Methods from an Empty Set	Descriptive	Does the possibility of a method being derived from an empty set pose a problem for the current formulation of the third law? Can we conceive of a situation in which a method is derived from an empty subset?	2017
Disjointness of Acceptance Criteria	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of acceptance criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with acceptance criteria?	2015
Disjointness of Accidental Group	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of accidental group disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with accidental group?	2016
Disjointness of Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of authority delegation disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with authority delegation?	2016
Disjointness of Community	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of community disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with community?	2016
Disjointness of Compatibility	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of compatibility disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with compatibility?	2015
Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of compatibility criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with compatibility criteria?	2015
Disjointness of Core Question	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of core question disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with core question?	2021
Disjointness of Core Theory	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of core theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with core theory?	2021
Disjointness of Definition	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of definition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with definition?	2018
Disjointness of Delineating Theory	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of delineating theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with delineating theory?	2021
Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of demarcation criteria disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with demarcation criteria?	2015
Disjointness of Descriptive Theory	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of descriptive theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with descriptive theory?	2015
Disjointness of Discipline	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of discipline disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with discipline?	2016
Disjointness of Discipline Acceptance	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of discipline acceptance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with discipline acceptance?	2021
Disjointness of Element Decay	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of element decay disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with element decay?	2021
Disjointness of Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic action disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic action?	2023
Disjointness of Epistemic Agent	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic agent disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic agent?	2018
Disjointness of Epistemic Community	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic community disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic community?	2016
Disjointness of Epistemic Element	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic element disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic element?	2015
Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic presupposition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic presupposition?	2019
Disjointness of Epistemic Stance	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic stance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic stance?	2015
Disjointness of Epistemic Tool	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of epistemic tool disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with epistemic tool?	2019
Disjointness of Error	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of error disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with error?	2019
Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of explicable-implicit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with explicable-implicit?	2018
Disjointness of Explicit	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of explicit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with explicit?	2018
Disjointness of Global Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of global epistemic action disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with global epistemic action?	2023
Disjointness of Group	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of group disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with group?	2016
Disjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of hierarchical authority delegation disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with hierarchical authority delegation?	2017
Disjointness of Implicit	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of implicit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with implicit?	2018
Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of individual epistemic agent disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with individual epistemic agent?	2019
Disjointness of Inexplicable	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of inexplicable disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with inexplicable?	2018
Disjointness of Local Action Availability	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of local action availability disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with local action availability?	2023
Disjointness of Local Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of local epistemic action disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with local epistemic action?	2023
Disjointness of Logical Presupposition	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of logical presupposition disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with logical presupposition?	2021
Disjointness of Method	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of method disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with method?	2015
Disjointness of Method Hierarchy	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of method hierarchy disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with method hierarchy?	2019
Disjointness of Methodology	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of methodology disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with methodology?	2015
Disjointness of Model	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of model disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with model?	2016
Disjointness of Mosaic Merge	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of mosaic merge disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with mosaic merge?	2015
Disjointness of Mosaic Split	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of mosaic split disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with mosaic split?	2015
Disjointness of Multiple Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of multiple authority delegation disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with multiple authority delegation?	2017
Disjointness of Non-Epistemic Community	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of non-epistemic community disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with non-epistemic community?	2016
Disjointness of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of non-hierarchical authority delegation disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with non-hierarchical authority delegation?	2017
Disjointness of Norm Employment	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of norm employment disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with norm employment?	2018
Disjointness of Normative Theory	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of normative theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with normative theory?	2015
Disjointness of Procedural Method	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of procedural method disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with procedural method?	2015
Disjointness of Question	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of question disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with question?	2018
Disjointness of Question Acceptance	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of question acceptance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with question acceptance?	2018
Disjointness of Question Pursuit	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of question pursuit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with question pursuit?	2022
Disjointness of Reason	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of reason disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with reason?	2019
Disjointness of Scientific Change	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of scientific change disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with scientific change?	2015
Disjointness of Scientific Community	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of scientific community disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with scientific community?	2015
Disjointness of Scientific Mosaic	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of scientific mosaic disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with scientific mosaic?	2015
Disjointness of Scientonomy	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of [[Scientonomy\|]] disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with [[Scientonomy\|]]?	2016
Disjointness of Singular Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of singular authority delegation disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with singular authority delegation?	2017
Disjointness of Sociocultural Factors	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of sociocultural factors disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with sociocultural factors?	2016
Disjointness of Subdiscipline	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of subdiscipline disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with subdiscipline?	2021
Disjointness of Subquestion	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of subquestion disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with subquestion?	2021
Disjointness of Substantive Method	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of substantive method disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with substantive method?	2015
Disjointness of Theory	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of theory disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory?	2015
Disjointness of Theory Acceptance	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of theory acceptance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory acceptance?	2015
Disjointness of Theory Decay	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of theory decay disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory decay?	2021
Disjointness of Theory Pursuit	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of theory pursuit disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory pursuit?	2015
Disjointness of Theory Use	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of theory use disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with theory use?	2015
Disjointness of Tool Reliance	Descriptive	What other classes is the class of tool reliance disjoint with, i.e. classes that don't share any instances with tool reliance?	2019
Element Decay	Definitional	What is element decay? How should it be defined?	2021
Epistemic Action	Definitional	What is epistemic action? How should it be defined?	2023
Epistemic Community	Definitional	What is epistemic community? How should it be defined? I.e. how is it different from non-epistemic community?	2016
Epistemic Element	Definitional	What is epistemic element? How should it be defined?	2015
Epistemic Stance	Definitional	What is epistemic stance? How should it be defined?	2015
Existence of Element Decay	Descriptive	Does element decay exist?	2021
Existence of Epistemic Action	Descriptive	Does an epistemic action exist?	2023
Existence of Explicable-Implicit	Descriptive	Does explicable-implicit exist?	2018
Existence of Global Epistemic Action	Descriptive	Does a global epistemic action exist?	2023
Existence of Implicit	Descriptive	Does implicit exist?	2018
Existence of Local Action Availability	Descriptive	Does local action availability exist?	2023
Existence of Local Epistemic Action	Descriptive	Does a local epistemic action exist?	2023
Existence of Method Hierarchies	Descriptive	Do method hierarchies exist?	2019
Existence of Method Hierarchy	Descriptive	Does a method hierarchy exist?	2019
Existence of Model	Descriptive	Does a model exist?	2016
Existence of Non-Epistemic Community	Descriptive	Does a non-epistemic community exist?	2016
Existence of Question Pursuit	Descriptive	Does question pursuit exist?	2022
Existence of Reason	Descriptive	Does a reason exist?	2019
Existence of Theory Decay	Descriptive	Does theory decay exist?	2021
Global Epistemic Action	Definitional	What is global epistemic action? How should it be defined?	2023
Hierarchy of Theories	Descriptive	Is there a hierarchy of theories that determines hierarchical authority delegation, hierarchical anomaly-tolerance, compatibility criteria or theory acceptance criteria?	2018
Indicators of Communities	Normative	What types of historical markers can be taken as indicative that a certain group constituted an epistemic community at a certain time community?	2018
Indicators of Question Acceptance	Normative	What type of historical markers can be taken as indicative that a question was accepted by an agent at a given time?	2018
Indicators of Violation	Normative	What are the methodological indicators of violations of scientific change?	2018
Individual Epistemic Agent	Definitional	What is individual epistemic agent? How should it be defined?	2019
Individual and Communal Levels	Descriptive	How is the communal mosaic related to the mosaics of the members of the community?	2018
Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes	Normative	What can an observational scientonomist infer about a theory's assessment outcome from the theory's acceptance/unacceptance?	2017
Local Action Availability	Definitional	What is local action availability? How should it be defined?	2023
Local Epistemic Action	Definitional	What is local epistemic action? How should it be defined?	2023
Mechanism of Discipline Acceptance	Descriptive	What is the mechanism of discipline acceptance? How do disciplines become accepted?	2021
Mechanism of Discipline Rejection	Descriptive	What is the mechanism of discipline rejection? How do disciplines become rejected?	2021
Mechanism of Theory Pursuit	Descriptive	What is the mechanism of theory pursuit, if any? How do theories become pursued by communities? Is pursuit purely determined by sociocultural factors or is there an epistemic element to it as well?	2015
Method Hierarchy	Definitional	What is method hierarchy? How should it be defined?	2019
Methods Shaping Theory Construction	Descriptive	Do our employed methods and accepted demarcation criteria influence theory construction?	2016
Model	Definitional	What is model? How should it be defined?	2016
Necessary Descriptive Theories	Descriptive	Are there descriptive theories that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What descriptive theories, is any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?	2023
Necessary Logic	Descriptive	What minimal set of inference rules (i.e. logic) is required for scientific change to occur?	2018
Necessary Questions	Descriptive	Are there questions that are necessarily part of any mosaic? What questions, if any, are necessary for the process of scientific change to occur?	2018
Non-Epistemic Community	Definitional	What is non-epistemic community? How should it be defined? I.e. how can it be differentiated from epistemic community?	2016
Normative Effects of Scientonomy	Descriptive	What are the normative effects of scientonomy on the process of scientific change?	2018
Philosophy of Science - Demarcation	Descriptive	Can scientonomy as a descriptive empirical science of science be applied to solve the problem of demarcation?	2018
Philosophy of Science - Relativism	Descriptive	Can scientonomy as a descriptive empirical science of science be applied to solve the problem of scientific progress?	2018
Philosophy of Science - Scientific Progress	Descriptive	Can scientonomy as a descriptive empirical science of science be applied to solve the problem of scientific progress/relativism?	2018
Question Pursuit	Definitional	What is question pursuit? How should it be defined?	2022
Reason	Definitional	What is reason? How should it be defined?	2019
Reducibility of Definitions	Descriptive	Are definitions somehow reducible to other epistemic elements, such as descriptive or normative theories?	2018
Role of Ethics in Scientific Change	Descriptive	What role do ethical concerns play in scientific change? Are ethical norms capable of affecting employed methods?	2016
Role of Non-Social and Environmental Factors in Scientific Change	Descriptive	In addition to interactions between people in a community, what role do interactions between people and their natural, non-social environment have on the process of scientific change?	2017
Role of Practical Considerations in Scientific Change	Descriptive	What is the role of practical considerations such as financial constraints or limitations of manpower in the process of scientific change?	2016
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment	Descriptive	What is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of method employment?	2015
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Question Acceptance	Descriptive	What is the role of sociocultural factors, such as economics or politics, in the process of question acceptance?	2021
Scientific Community	Definitional	What is scientific community? How should it be defined?	2015
Scope of Scientonomy - Mosaic Formation	Normative	Should Scientonomy tackle the question of the initial formation of a scientific mosaic?	2018
Sociocultural Factors	Definitional	What are sociocultural factors? How should they be defined?	2016
Status of Tacit Theories	Descriptive	What is the status of tacit theories in the scientific mosaic? Is it possible for a community to actually accept a theory without openly formulating it?	2016
Subdisciplines of Observational Scientonomy	Discipline	What are the subdisciplines of observational scientonomy?	2016
Subdisciplines of Theoretical Scientonomy	Discipline	What are the subdisciplines of theoretical scientonomy?	2016
Subtypes of Acceptance Criteria	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of acceptance criteria?	2015
Subtypes of Accidental Group	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an accidental group?	2016
Subtypes of Community	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a community?	2016
Subtypes of Compatibility	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of compatibility?	2015
Subtypes of Compatibility Criteria	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a compatibility criteria?	2015
Subtypes of Core Question	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a core question?	2021
Subtypes of Core Theory	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a core theory?	2021
Subtypes of Definition	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a definition?	2018
Subtypes of Delineating Theory	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a delineating theory?	2021
Subtypes of Demarcation Criteria	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a demarcation criteria?	2015
Subtypes of Descriptive Theory	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a descriptive theory?	2015
Subtypes of Discipline	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a discipline?	2016
Subtypes of Discipline Acceptance	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of discipline acceptance?	2021
Subtypes of Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an epistemic action?	2023
Subtypes of Epistemic Community	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an epistemic community?	2016
Subtypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an epistemic presupposition?	2019
Subtypes of Epistemic Tool	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an epistemic tool?	2019
Subtypes of Error	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an error?	2019
Subtypes of Explicable-Implicit	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of explicable-implicit?	2018
Subtypes of Explicit	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of explicit?	2018
Subtypes of Global Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a global epistemic action?	2023
Subtypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of hierarchical authority delegation?	2017
Subtypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of an individual epistemic agent?	2019
Subtypes of Inexplicable	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of inexplicable?	2018
Subtypes of Local Action Availability	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of local action availability?	2023
Subtypes of Local Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a local epistemic action?	2023
Subtypes of Logical Presupposition	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a logical presupposition?	2021
Subtypes of Method Hierarchy	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a method hierarchy?	2019
Subtypes of Methodology	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a methodology?	2015
Subtypes of Model	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a model?	2016
Subtypes of Mosaic Merge	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a mosaic merge?	2015
Subtypes of Mosaic Split	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a mosaic split?	2015
Subtypes of Mutual Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of mutual authority delegation?	2016
Subtypes of Non-Epistemic Community	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a non-epistemic community?	2016
Subtypes of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of non-hierarchical authority delegation?	2017
Subtypes of Norm Employment	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of norm employment?	2018
Subtypes of One-sided Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of one-sided authority delegation?	2016
Subtypes of Outcome Inconclusive	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of outcome inconclusive?	2015
Subtypes of Procedural Method	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a procedural method?	2015
Subtypes of Question	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a question?	2018
Subtypes of Question Acceptance	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of question acceptance?	2018
Subtypes of Question Pursuit	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of question pursuit?	2022
Subtypes of Reason	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a reason?	2019
Subtypes of Scientific Change	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of scientific change?	2015
Subtypes of Scientific Community	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a scientific community?	2015
Subtypes of Scientific Mosaic	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a scientific mosaic?	2015
Subtypes of Scientonomy	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of [[Scientonomy\|]]?	2016
Subtypes of Singular Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of singular authority delegation?	2017
Subtypes of Sociocultural Factors	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a sociocultural factors?	2016
Subtypes of Subdiscipline	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a subdiscipline?	2021
Subtypes of Subquestion	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a subquestion?	2021
Subtypes of Substantive Method	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of a substantive method?	2015
Subtypes of Theory Acceptance	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of theory acceptance?	2015
Subtypes of Theory Decay	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of theory decay?	2021
Subtypes of Theory Pursuit	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of theory pursuit?	2015
Subtypes of Theory Use	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of theory use?	2015
Subtypes of Tool Reliance	Descriptive	What are the subtypes of tool reliance?	2019
Superdisciplines of Scientonomy	Discipline	What are the superdisciplines of scientonomy?	2016
Supertypes of Acceptance Criteria	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of acceptance criteria?	2015
Supertypes of Authority Delegation	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of authority delegation?	2016
Supertypes of Compatibility Criteria	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a compatibility criteria?	2015
Supertypes of Core Question	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a core question?	2021
Supertypes of Core Theory	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a core theory?	2021
Supertypes of Delineating Theory	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a delineating theory?	2021
Supertypes of Demarcation Criteria	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a demarcation criteria?	2015
Supertypes of Discipline	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a discipline?	2016
Supertypes of Discipline Acceptance	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of discipline acceptance?	2021
Supertypes of Element Decay	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of element decay?	2021
Supertypes of Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic action?	2023
Supertypes of Epistemic Agent	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic agent?	2018
Supertypes of Epistemic Element	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic element?	2015
Supertypes of Epistemic Presupposition	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic presupposition?	2019
Supertypes of Epistemic Stance	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic stance?	2015
Supertypes of Epistemic Tool	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an epistemic tool?	2019
Supertypes of Error	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of an error?	2019
Supertypes of Explicit	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of explicit?	2018
Supertypes of Global Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a global epistemic action?	2023
Supertypes of Group	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a group?	2016
Supertypes of Implicit	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of implicit?	2018
Supertypes of Local Action Availability	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of local action availability?	2023
Supertypes of Local Epistemic Action	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a local epistemic action?	2023
Supertypes of Logical Presupposition	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a logical presupposition?	2021
Supertypes of Method Hierarchy	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a method hierarchy?	2019
Supertypes of Methodology	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a methodology?	2015
Supertypes of Model	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a model?	2016
Supertypes of Mosaic Merge	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a mosaic merge?	2015
Supertypes of Mosaic Split	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a mosaic split?	2015
Supertypes of Non-Epistemic Community	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a non-epistemic community?	2016
Supertypes of Question Pursuit	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of question pursuit?	2022
Supertypes of Reason	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a reason?	2019
Supertypes of Scientific Change	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of scientific change?	2015
Supertypes of Scientific Community	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a scientific community?	2015
Supertypes of Scientific Mosaic	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a scientific mosaic?	2015
Supertypes of Scientonomy	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of [[Scientonomy\|]]?	2016
Supertypes of Sociocultural Factors	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a sociocultural factors?	2016
Supertypes of Subdiscipline	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a subdiscipline?	2021
Supertypes of Subquestion	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of a subquestion?	2021
Supertypes of Tool Reliance	Descriptive	What are the supertypes of tool reliance?	2019
Tautological Status of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Is the method rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the norm rejection theorem suggested by Pandey in 2023 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021)	Descriptive	Is the question rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan and Levesley in 2021 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the question rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan, Levesley, and Pandey in 2023 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Is the first law suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?	2016
Tautological Status of The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Is the first law for methods suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?	2016
Tautological Status of The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the first law for norms suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the first law for questions suggested by Barseghyan and Levesley in 2021 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Is the first law for theories suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?	2016
Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the first law for theories suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	Descriptive	Is the law of theory demarcation as formulated by Sarwar and Fraser in 2018 a tautology?	2018
Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Descriptive	Is the theory rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan in 2015 a tautology?	2023
Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023)	Descriptive	Is the theory rejection theorem suggested by Barseghyan and Pandey in 2023 a tautology?	2023
The Necessity of Intercommunication for Community	Descriptive	If two independent communities undergo similar changes which result in identical mosaics, are these communities still considered as distinct, or are they a single community?	2016
The Necessity of Language in Community	Descriptive	Is a shared language, or propositional code, presupposed by the existence of an epistemic community?	2017
The Status of Holism and Ripple Effect	Descriptive	Is it the case that changes in one of the elements of a mosaic can have a "ripple effect" on the rest of the mosaic?	2018
Theories Shaping Core Questions	Descriptive	How do theories within a discipline shape and change the core questions of the disciplines?	2021
Theory Decay	Definitional	What is theory decay? How should it be defined?	2021

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of all modifications suggested to the mosaic of this community:

Modification	Topic	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2016-0001	Mechanism of Method Employment, The Paradox of Normative Propositions	3 September 2016	Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from all accepted theories and employed methods but only from some.	21 January 2017	Accepted	There was a community consensus that "the new formulation of the third law does bring an additional level of precision to our understanding of the mechanism of method change".^c1 The community agreed that the new formulation "makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance".^c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the modification "solves the paradox of normative propositions".^c3
Sciento-2016-0002	Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory, Theory Acceptance, Theory, Methodology	3 September 2016	Accept a new taxonomy for theory, normative theory, descriptive theory to reintroduce normative propositions (such as those of ethics or methodology) to the scientific mosaic.	23 January 2017	Not Accepted	Since this modification consisted of two interrelated but essentially distinct suggestions - one definitional and one ontological - it was decided by the community to divide it into two modifications so that the gist of the proposed suggestions is properly articulated. In particular, it was agreed that there are two modifications in "the heart of this single modification - one ontological, the other definitional".^c1 It was also agreed that the current formulation "is exclusively definitional, and does not give the community an opportunity to appreciate (and, well, accept) the ontological changes that come along with it".^c2 Consequently, it was decided to divide this modification into two modifications - one definitional and one ontological.^c3
Sciento-2016-0003	Authority Delegation	7 September 2016	Accept the notion of authority delegation.	1 February 2017	Accepted	There was a community consensus that the concept of authority delegation is a significant contribution to scientonomy, as it "sheds light on the mechanism by which the more local, specialized mosaics of epistemic/scientific sub-communities gives rise to the more global scientific mosaic (of the Scientific Community), and all in terms of theories and methods".^c1 It was also noted that the concept "has already been tacitly accepted by our community"^c2 as it has been incorporated in some recent scientonomic research. One further suggestion was to continue refining the concept of authority delegation by focusing on cases "where the delegating community applies its own additional criteria before accepting what the experts tell them".^c3
Sciento-2016-0004	Mutual Authority Delegation, One-sided Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Authority Delegation, Existence of Mutual Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Mutual Authority Delegation, Existence of One-sided Authority Delegation, Supertypes of One-sided Authority Delegation	7 September 2016	Provided that the notion of authority delegation is accepted, accept the notions of mutual authority delegation and one-sided authority delegation as subtypes of authority delegation.	2 February 2018	Accepted	Following a period of discussion, it was finally agreed that "the current definitions of authority delegation, mutual authority delegation, and one-sided authority delegation, despite their problems, are currently the best available such definitions".^c1 It was noted that these definitions don't take into the account the possibility of conditional authority delegation, where community A is prepared to accept the findings of another community on a certain topic only if these findings also satisfy some additional criteria imposed by community A. It was argued that there might be cases where a community's reliance on the findings of another community might be "conditional in ways that the current authority delegation definition is too restrictive to encompass".^c2 The idea of conditional delegation was found pursuit-worhty.^c3 It was also stressed that these definitions are only the first step towards a deeper understanding of the mechanism of authority delegation. Scientonomists were advised to pursue the idea of deducing "theorems concerning theory acceptance and method employment in delegating mosaics".^c4
Sciento-2017-0001	Normative Theory, Descriptive Theory, Theory, Methodology	23 January 2017	Accept new definitions for theory, normative theory, and descriptive theory. Also, modify the definition of methodology to reflect these changes.	15 February 2017	Accepted	The community agreed that this is "an important addition to theoretical scientonomy".^c1 It was agreed that since "the paradox of normative propositions has been solved, a revised set of definitions was needed".^c2 It was emphasized that if we're going to have any sort of conversation on the status of normative propositions in the mosaic, "then we need to start from a definition".^c3
Sciento-2017-0002	Theory Acceptance, Subtypes of Theory, Supertypes of Normative Theory, Existence of Normative Theory	23 January 2017	Accept a new ontology of scientific change where the two fundamental elements are theories - both descriptive and normative - and methods.	15 February 2017	Accepted	The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.^{c1 c2 c3} It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".^c4
Sciento-2017-0003		27 January 2017	Accept that licenses to teach [ʾijāzāt] are reliable indicators of which texts were considered authoritative in the Medieval Arabic scientific mosaic (MASM) in c. 750-1258 CE in the Abbasid caliphate. Thus, a proposition can be said to be accepted in MASM if the evidence of the licenses to teach [ʾijāzāt] indicates so.	16 October 2021	Accepted	Commentators agreed that Fatigati provided "a compelling case for the power of ‘authoritative texts’ to serve as indicators of accepted theories in MASM"^c1 and that "it is perfectly reasonable to rely on authoritative texts to determine what was a part of the MASM".^c2 It was also noted that we must "take the idea of the MASM as a monolithic community with a grain of salt",^c3 which is in tune with Fatigati's own position. Fatigati's modification was also praised "as an exemplar for future work in observational scientonomy" especially as due to its potential to spur "further interest in studies of scientific mosaics outside of the immediate Western tradition".^c4 It was noted that this "type of research will need to be carried out on a very large scale if observational scientonomy is to achieve its lofty goals". Specifically, research focusing on various "small communities" could potentially "bring some observational evidence into the discussion of Necessary Elements" and "might prove of interest for future scientonomists interested in exploring the Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change".^c5
Sciento-2017-0004	Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Employed Method, Theory Assessment Outcomes, Outcome Inconclusive, Outcome Satisfied, Outcome Not Satisfied	5 February 2017	Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method.	29 November 2017	Accepted	The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".^c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".^c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.^c3
Sciento-2017-0005	Tautological Status of The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	5 February 2017	Accept that the new second law is not a tautology.	29 November 2017	Accepted	The modification was deemed uncontroversial by the community. Its acceptance was contingent upon the acceptance of the new formulation of the second law suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan. Once the new second law became accepted, it was also accepted that the new law is not a tautology. There was no notable discussion concerning this modification.
Sciento-2017-0006	Inferring Theory Assessment Outcomes	5 February 2017	Accept the following set of inferences of theory assessment outcomes from the acceptance or unacceptance of a single contender and two contenders.		Open
Sciento-2017-0007	Singular Authority Delegation, Multiple Authority Delegation, Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Singular Authority Delegation, Supertypes of Multiple Authority Delegation, Existence of Multiple Authority Delegation, Subtypes of Multiple Authority Delegation, Existence of Singular Authority Delegation, Existence of Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation	19 May 2017	Accept the definitions of the following subtypes of authority delegation: singular authority delegation, multiple authority delegation, hierarchical authority delegation, and non-hierarchical authority delegation.	23 October 2018	Accepted	While the notions of singular and multiple authority delegation didn't cause much controversy, the notions of hierarchical and non-hierarchical authority delegation gave rise to notable disagreement among scientonomists. As a result, the modification was in discussion for about a year and a half.^c1 Eventually, a consensus emerged mostly as a result of offline (in-person) discussion meetings. It was agreed that "for decisions that are not rote and routine, it seems highly unlikely that a pre-established hierarchy of authority delegation does or could exist, nor could a pre-established belief that all authorities should be given equal weight".^c2 However, it was also agreed that Loiselle's study "have identified at least one aspect of hierarchical authority delegation in epistemic communities",^c3 for "there seem to be instances where some experts occupy privileged positions in the eyes of those delegating authority" and that "alone is sufficient to suggest that hierarchies of authority delegation exists, regardless of of how transient or fixed they might be".^c4
Sciento-2017-0008		19 May 2017	Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Monet: A work claimed to be by Monet is authentic if it is considered authentic by the Wildenstein Institute.		Open
Sciento-2017-0009		19 May 2017	Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Picasso: a work claimed to be by Picasso is authentic if it is has been certified as authentic by both Maya Widmaier-Picasso and Claude Ruiz-Picasso.		Open
Sciento-2017-0010		19 May 2017	Accept the following reconstruction of the authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Modigliani between 1997 and 2015: a work claimed to be by Modigliani is authentic iff (1) it is in the Ceroni catalogue raisonné or (2) if it is not in catalogue and has been certified as authentic by Marc Restellini.		Open
Sciento-2017-0011		19 May 2017	Accept the following reconstruction of the contemporary authority delegation structure in the art market regarding the works of Renoir: a work claimed to be by Renoir is authentic iff (1) it has been certified as authentic by the Wildenstein institute or (2) it has not been dismissed by the Wildenstein institute and it is included in the Bernheim-Jeune catalogue.		Open
Sciento-2017-0012	Group, Community, Accidental Group, Existence of Community, Supertypes of Community, Existence of Accidental Group, Supertypes of Accidental Group, Subtypes of Group, Existence of Group	19 May 2017	Accept a new taxonomy for group and its two sub-types - accidental group, and community.	2 February 2018	Accepted	A consensus has emerged after a long discussion that the distinction and the respective definitions should be accepted. It was noted that "these formulations tend to be the starting point for so many of our discussions"^c1 and that "despite all disagreements that this taxonomy causes, it is actually accepted by the community".^c2 Yet, it was also indicated that whereas the definition of group as "two or more people that share a characteristic" is the best we have at the moment, it may be potentially necessary to pursue the idea of redefining it as "one or more people..." to allow for one-scientist communities.^c3 Finally, while a question was raised whether there is any "value in defining accidental groups as something separate from groups",^c4 it was eventually agreed that it is important to draw "a clear distinction between the two kinds of groups as accidental groups and communities".^c5
Sciento-2017-0013	Associations of Community	19 May 2017	Accept that communities can consist of other communities, i.e. that there is such a thing as a sub-community.		Open
Sciento-2017-0014	Epistemic Community, Non-Epistemic Community	19 May 2017	Provided that the definition of community is accepted, accept new definitions of epistemic community and non-epistemic community as sub-types of community.		Open
Sciento-2017-0015	Epistemic Community as Part of Non-Epistemic Community	19 May 2017	Provided that the distinction between epistemic and non-epistemic communities is accepted, accept that a non-epistemic community can consist of epistemic communities.		Open	The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2017-0013 and Sciento-2017-0014 all become accepted.
Sciento-2018-0001	Question	12 May 2018	Accept the definition of question as a topic of inquiry.	26 September 2018	Accepted	The consensus was reached as a result of in-person consultations with scientonomists mostly outside of the discussion page of this modification. It was agreed that as the only currently published definition of the term, Rawleigh's definition is to be accepted as the best available. An alternative definition of question as "a topic of scientific inquiry"^c1 was presented as a potentially pursuit-worthy direction. However, it was eventually agreed that including "scientificity" into the definition of question conflates "the question of how a question should be defined" with "the question of what stances can be taken towards questions".^c2 It does not distinguish "the propositional content of the element itself" and "its historical fate", for "scientificity or lack thereof doesn't change the propositional content of the question".^c3
Sciento-2018-0002	Subtypes of Epistemic Element, Supertypes of Question, Existence of Question	12 May 2018	Accept the ontology of epistemic elements with theories, methods, and questions as distinct epistemic elements.	26 September 2018	Accepted	Following several focused discussions - both in-person and on the discussion page of this modification - it was finally decided that the modification is to be accepted. Three important clarifications were made. First, it was noted that Rawleigh only shows that questions cannot be reduced either to methods or to theories, but it is still conceivable "that questions may be functions of both theories and methods simultaneously".^c1 Second, it was decided that accepting the modification is still warranted, since currently we don't have any idea how questions could be reduced to a conjunction of theories and methods.^c2 Third, scientonomists are actively encouraged to pursue the question of possibility of reducing questions to a conjunction of theories and methods.^c3
Sciento-2018-0003	Question Acceptance, Epistemic Stances Towards Questions, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Question Acceptance, Existence of Question Acceptance	12 May 2018	Accept that the epistemic stance that can be taken by an epistemic agent towards a question is question acceptance (the opposite is unacceptance), where question acceptance is defined as "a question is said to be accepted if it is taken as a legitimate topic of inquiry".	1 November 2018	Accepted	It was noted that "the whole point of adding questions to the ontology of epistemic elements was that we can legitimately speak of a question being accepted by a certain agent at a certain time".^c1 The discussion also revealed a need to distinguish "a situation where no consensus exists from a situation where a consensus exists that a question is illegitimate".^c2 In other words, "just as question acceptance, theory acceptance too seems to allow for three values: (clearly) accepted; (clearly) unaccepted; no consensus".^c3 Thus, a new question was suggested concerning the binary character of epistemic stances: "are all epistemic stances binary, or do they allow for more than two values?"^c4
Sciento-2018-0004		12 May 2018	Accept the questions of the mechanism question acceptance and indicators of question acceptance as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry.	1 November 2018	Accepted	As the modification concerned exclusively questions, it was set to be accepted automatically once its "parent" modifications became accepted. Thus, the questions of the mechanism of question acceptance and indicators of question acceptance became automatically accepted once the presupposed modifications were accepted.
Sciento-2018-0005	Method, Methodology	8 October 2018	Accept the new definitions of method as a set of criteria for theory evaluation and methodology as a normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment.	1 September 2019	Accepted	The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, following a series of discussions. It was noted that the new definition "does clarify the scientific understanding of methods as normative theories that can be both accepted and employed".^c1 It was also highlighted that the consensus on this modification "has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the speakers treated the suggested definition of method as accepted".^c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the acceptance of "this definition will require a whole series of changes to other theories already accepted by the scientonomic community to accord with the new definitions, for example, the Methodology can shape Method theorem."^c3 This raises an important workflow-related question: does this mean that the encyclopedia editors have the right to make the respective changes?^c4
Sciento-2018-0006	Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories, Theory Acceptance, Supertypes of Method, Subtypes of Theory, Associations of Theory, Associations of Question, Subtypes of Normative Theory, Supertypes of Definition, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Norm Employment, Existence of Norm Employment, Existence of Definition	8 October 2018	Accept the new ontology of epistemic elements with, theories and questions are the two basic epistemic elements where and each theory is an attempt to answer a certain question, theories can be of three types – descriptive, normative, or definitions, and methods are a subtype of normative theory.	1 September 2019	Accepted	Following a series of off-line discussions, a consensus emerged concerning this modification: it was agreed that the modification is to be accepted.^c1 It was mentioned that most of the elements of this new ontology "has already been accepted by the scientonomic community".^c2 It was also stressed that "the consensus has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the presenters treated this new ontology as accepted."^c3 The fact that the consensus concerning this modification has been achieved primarily off-line, i.e. outside of the discussion pages of this encyclopedia suggests that the scientonomic "workflow must have a way of accommodating these discussions".^c4
Sciento-2018-0007	Definition	8 October 2018	Accept the definition of definition as a statement of the meaning of a term.	1 September 2019	Accepted	The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that whether or not "definitions can have a truth value" is irrelevant to this modification and that "the question of most relevance to scientonomy is whether definitions can be accepted or not accepted by an epistemic agent".^c1 It was also noted that the consensus concerning this modification "has manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto."^c2
Sciento-2018-0008	Norm Employment	8 October 2018	Accept the definition of norm employment.	1 September 2019	Accepted	The consensus on this modification emerged mostly off-line.^c1 Importantly, it was also emphasized that its acceptance may have a ripple effect on other accepted definitions.^c2 It was not clear whether "the acceptance of a new theory could be considered to implicitly grant permission to the editors to make small changes to old theories for the sake of maintaining consistency, without the need for explicit review and acceptance".^c3 Thus, a new question concerning handling this ripple effect was accepted.
Sciento-2018-0009	Scientific Mosaic	8 October 2018	Accept the new definition of scientific mosaic as a set of all epistemic elements accepted and/or employed by the epistemic agent.	17 May 2020	Accepted	Initially, the modification raised an objection from Patton who argued that the modification "is not acceptable at present, because it contains a term; epistemic agent, which has not yet been defined within scientonomy".^c1 This objection received two counterarguments. According to Barseghyan, the lack of such a definition of epistemic agent should not "be taken as a reason for postponing the acceptance of the definition of scientific mosaic", since inevitably any taxonomy contains terms that "rely in their definitions on other (yet) undefined terms".^c2 This point was seconded by Rawleigh who argued that the definition of scientific mosaic is to be accepted regardless of whether there is an accepted definition of epistemic agent, since "it's de facto accepted already that some agent is required to have a mosaic".^c3 In early 2020, Patton dropped his objection as he found that there was "sufficient general understanding of what an epistemic agent is to accept this definition of the scientific mosaic, even without first accepting a definition of epistemic agent".^c4 Additionally, Rawleigh argued that the definition is to be accepted since we have "already accepted the revised question-theory ontology".^c5
Sciento-2018-0010		8 October 2018	Accept that epistemic stances of all types can be taken explicitly and/or implicitly and that epistemic elements of all types can be explicit and/or implicit.	1 September 2019	Accepted	The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line.^c1 It was agreed that this modification is to be accepted, as it "opens the way for any epistemic stance or element to be either implicit or explicit, with the arbiter for any given case being empirical evidence".^c2
Sciento-2018-0011	Explicit, Implicit, Explicable-Implicit, Inexplicable, Subtypes of Implicit, Supertypes of Inexplicable	28 December 2018	Accept the three-fold distinction between explicit, explicable-implicit, and inexplicable.	1 September 2019	Accepted	The consensus on this modification emerged primarily off-line. It was agreed that "the modification should be accepted".^c1 It was also agreed "that the three-fold distinction is to be accepted as it introduces a distinction between explicable-implicit and inexplicable and thus contributes to the clarity of discussions concerning implicit and explicit."^c2
Sciento-2018-0012	Status of Technological Knowledge	28 December 2018	Accept that propositional technological knowledge – i.e. technological questions, theories, and methods – can be part of a mosaic.	11 February 2020	Accepted	After a series of mostly off-line discussions, it has been agreed that the modification is to be accepted. It was agreed that "Mirkin's discussion of potential counterarguments [are] convincing".^c1 The consensus is that "Mirkin presents arguments that technological knowledge, like scientific knowledge, can be accepted and not just used, and argues that there are no good prior reasons to suppose that technological knowledge would not be explicable using established scientonomic laws or patterns of change".^c2 There seem to be "no prima facie reasons why changes in technological knowledge should not obey the same patterns of scientific change",^c3 especially given that fact that "there is considerable overlap between science and technology, as when an instrument is used to acquire scientific data, and the trustworthiness of this data must be assessed".^c4
Sciento-2018-0013	Epistemic Stances Towards Theories, Subtypes of Epistemic Stance, Supertypes of Scientificity	28 December 2018	Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept several questions concerning the definition of scientificity and the applicability of scientificity to other epistemic elements, such as methods and questions, as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry.		Open
Sciento-2018-0014	Mechanism of Theory Demarcation, Tautological Status of The Law of Theory Demarcation (Sarwar-Fraser-2018)	28 December 2018	Accept the law of theory demarcation as a new scientonomic axiom. Also accept questions concerning indicators of scientificity as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry.		Open	The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2018-0013 becomes accepted.
Sciento-2018-0015	Compatibility, Compatibility of Mosaic Elements, Tautological Status of The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)	28 December 2018	Accept the definition of compatibility, as the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also replace the zeroth law with the compatibility corollary.	3 June 2020	Accepted	While the modification induced a few comments on the encyclopedia, it became accepted as a result of discussions that took place mostly offline. It was agreed that the modification "comes to remedy one of the glaring omissions" in the current zeroth which doesn't "say much above and beyond what is already implicit in the notion of compatibility"^c1 as it "is lacking in empirical content, and should be replaced with a definition of compatibility".^c2 It was also noted that the proposed "definition of compatibility criteria... captures the gist of the concept as it has been used in our community".^c3 It was also agreed that "the compatibility corollary follows from this definition".^{c4 c5} Finally, the community accepted that the definition and the corollary "recover the content of the Zeroth Law".^c6
Sciento-2018-0016	Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements	28 December 2018	Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general.	1 October 2021	Accepted	The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",^c1 as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".^c2 The reviewers agreed that "Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic",^c3 since it "can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two".^c4 It was also argued that "since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria... we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility".^c5 Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.^c6
Sciento-2018-0017	Compatibility Criteria	28 December 2018	Accept the new definition of compatibility criteria as criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible.	11 October 2020	Accepted	The discussions concerning this modification took place mostly online, but primarily outside of this encyclopedia. There is a communal agreement that the modification is to be accepted as it fixes "an obvious drawback of [Barseghyan's] original definition".^c1 Since "compatibility is a stance that can be taken towards methods, theories, and questions alike"^c2 it is agreed that we need a definition that is applicable to all epistemic elements, not merely theories. It was also noted that the new definition has the advantage of being "neutral to the the addition of new epistemic elements to the scientonomic ontology".^c3
Sciento-2018-0018	Mechanism of Compatibility, Tautological Status of The Law of Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)	28 December 2018	Accept the new dynamic law of compatibility which specifies how exactly two elements become to be considered compatible or incompatible within a mosaic.	9 October 2021	Accepted	It was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"^c1 as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"^c2 and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".^c3 The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".^c4 While finding the law acceptable, one of the commentators raised an important question for future scientonomic research: do we even need a separate law of compatibility? Specifically they asked: "Is assessment for compatibility with other elements of the mosaic really conceptually distinct from the process of assessment for theory acceptance, which is already covered by other scientonomic laws?"^c5 On this view, "the issue of the conceptual separability of theory compatibility and theory acceptance, and thus the need for two parallel laws, remains an open question that warrants further investigation".^c6
Sciento-2018-0019	Theory Acceptance	28 December 2018	Accept the new definition of theory acceptance which makes explicit that accepted theories are a subset of scientific theories.		Open
Sciento-2018-0020	Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Demarcation and Acceptance	28 December 2018	Accept the demarcation-acceptance synchronism theorem.		Open	The modification can only become accepted once modifications Sciento-2018-0014 and Sciento-2018-0019 all become accepted.
Sciento-2019-0001	Workflow - Goals of Peer Review	22 December 2019	Accept that the goal of peer-reviews in the scientonomic workflow is evaluation for pursuitworthiness rather than acceptability.	25 February 2023	Accepted	The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. The modification was summarized by Paul Patton as essentially a ratification of current scientonomic practice. Jamie Shaw raised some concerns about how we don’t have adequately defined norms that must be satisfied for pursuitworthiness, which may make this modification trivial. Discussion about how peer-reviewers’ notions of pursuitworthiness may veer close to acceptability ensued. Nevertheless, the modification passed with 83% of the votes to accept (10/12).
Sciento-2019-0002	Workflow - Publishing Modification Comments	22 December 2019	Accept that 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.	25 February 2023	Accepted	The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. Much of the discussions on this modification concerned the actual format of the “special commentary articles” and “special edited collections” suggested as options for publications would be. Paul Patton suggested micro-papers that could accompany each modification (one discussion paper per modification), whereas Izzy Friesen, Rebecca Muscant, and G. G. Shan were supportive of unified papers in a “compilation” format (one discussion paper per workshop). The possibility of doing both concurrently was floated by Spenser Borrie. Concerns about the commentary articles/edited collections waned once it was clarified that subheadings would be present in any compilation paper, ensuring that modifications and their authors would receive adequate attention. Establishing a clear schedule and framework for such a compilation was of great importance to all attendees at the meeting, and additionally, Hakob Barseghyan suggested a special numbering system for these publications to separate them from peer-reviewed articles. It was also agreed that the first author of such a paper would be whoever was in charge of taking notes, with all other commentators listed as co-authors. The modification was accepted almost unanimously.
Sciento-2019-0003	Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting Modifications	22 December 2019	Accept that the commentators of suggested modifications are allowed to suggest reformulations of the original formulations. Also accept that, 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. This should be decided collegially by the author, the commentators, and the editors on a case-by-case basis.	25 February 2023	Accepted	The decision was made during the 2023 scientonomy workshop. It was noted that the idea is compatible with other consensus systems where one is allowed to modify the proposal in order to reach consensus. The modification sparked important discussion about our iterative process. Paul Patton highlighted a potential problem with our workflow where, by the time we are discussing acceptance, the paper has already been formatted and published. He raised a question if it might be more advisable to use a two-stage process, where a paper is first posted in some preliminary form and then, following the debate on acceptance, it is reformulated as needed and the final version is considered published. Hakob Barseghyan responded that there always has to be a chance of commenting on something published post factum. Instead of the two-step process, he suggested allowing small alterations to modifications after the publication and publishing the commentaries to modifications in a separate article (as the community just accepted with modification 2019-0002), while leaving the original article intact. Greg Rupik also suggested the potential for a special designation for a tweaked modification identifier (e.g. 2019-0003a instead of 2019-0003) to make it more apparent which modifications were reformulated. Barseghyan responded that the wiki is well-suited to make reformulations apparent (most specifically, in the Preamble and Verdict sections) without the need to multiply modifications. He also emphasized that this modification pertains to smaller reformulations and not to significant changes to the content, making some concerns about the modification less immediately relevant. Barseghyan also addressed the question posted prior to the workshop by Ameer Sarwar: when other authors cite a modification that has been altered, what exactly should they cite? Barseghyan suggested that, since both the original modification and the altered one will be published, one can cite both. The modification was accepted unanimously.
Sciento-2019-0004		22 December 2019	Accept that an annual book prize is to be offered for extensive participation on the encyclopedia. The winner(s) are to be decided by the encyclopedia editors.		Open
Sciento-2019-0005		22 December 2019	Accept that star-ratings are to be introduced for commentators who comment on suggested modifications on the encyclopedia.	25 February 2023	Not Accepted	At the 2023 workshop, this modification was met with concerns from the community. Firstly, the question of the equitability of star ratings was highlighted by Rebecca Muscant and Izzy Friesen. Amirali Atrli also wondered whether the problem of incentives becomes further stretched out by the five-star scale. Kye Palider noted that the up-or-down arrow that we already have on our Wiki seems simpler and more democratic than star-ranking. Alessandra Castino also mentioned that on online forums, the basis of their rating systems can discourage new commenters, and that we might see this here too. Some rating systems are also better than others – it was suggested by Joshua Allen, for example, that StackExchange’s system could provide a good model, as it incentivizes participation. Friesen highlighted that larger forums where rating systems for commentary are popular include anonymity by default, which makes this kind of recognition important, but this is not so much of an issue in the scientonomy community. Palider suggested simply listing a user’s number of comments but, as Castino emphasized, such ratings might not reflect the quality of the comments. Jamie Shaw noted that this need not necessarily be an issue since all participation grades are almost inevitably subjective and don’t necessarily reflect the quality. Deivide Garcia suggested that more thoughts needs to be put into this before any of the suggestions could be implemented. Barseghyan agreed and noted that the mediawiki platform has limitations on what can be done here, so it is unclear which of the new suggestions could be possibly implemented. Ultimately, though, the modification was rejected.
Sciento-2019-0006	Workflow - Handling Ripple Effects	22 December 2019	Accept that the encyclopedia editors are to be granted official housekeeping rights to handle the ripple effects. Also accept that 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.	25 February 2023	Accepted	The decision was made during the 2023 workshop. Hakob Barseghyan emphasized that this modification does not grant permission to alter the body of scientonomic knowledge but simply to ensure that the pages of the encyclopedia reflect the actual state of scientonomic knowledge and that the scientonomic knowledge is stored in the most appropriate manner. Among other things, this is to handle the so-called ripple effect. Barseghyan mentioned that, while working on the encyclopedia with Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen, they had discovered several instances of ripple effect that resulted from our human lack of omniscience (e.g. a theory was supposed to be listed under Theories to Accept of a modification but wasn’t; a theory was actually accepted by the community but there was no record of it in the encyclopedia, etc.). Hence, according to Barseghyan, it would make sense to grant the editors the necessary right to adjust the respective pages to handle its consequences. Deivide Garcia wondered how such very small modifications can be tracked. Barseghyan responded that the changes in question are not meant to concern the body of scientonomic knowledge (thus, these are not modifications in the standard scientonomic sense), but are only to ensure that the encyclopedia reflects the current state of scientonomic knowledge and organizes that knowledge efficiently. Kye Palider highlighted the issue of transparency: how will the community be notified about such changes? Barseghyan suggested that an annual housekeeping paper is to be published in the Scientonomy journal as a collective report on changes to the encyclopedia. The modification was accepted.
Sciento-2019-0007	Workflow - Closure Mechanism	22 December 2019	Accept that the verdict on suggested modifications is to be decided by a communal vote that will follow the discussion period. Have a communal discussion and decide as to what percentage of votes it should take for a modification to be accepted - a simple majority (50% +1), or supermajority of three fifths (60%), two thirds (67%), or three quarters (75%). Also discuss to decide as to how long the discussion period and the voting period should be.	25 February 2023	Accepted	Prior to the 2023 workshop, Ameer Sarwar argued against the modification. First, he noted that voting is not an appropriate mechanism in science where the goal is to unearth truth.^c1 Second, it is unclear how we can ensure informed voting given that some members of the community could be inactive for several years. He thus suggested that we should keep this modification open and wait until after the resolution of modifications 2019-0002 and 2019-0003 that suggest alternative ways to increase participation. During the workshop, the modification was generally well received. Before voting, there was some concern about our voting process – who can vote and when can they vote? – voiced by Josh Allen and Paul Patton. Additionally, Deivide Garcia and Amirali Atrli raised concerns about who are “allowed” to function as part of the scientonomy community. Patton also suggested introducing quorum in addition to the 2/3rds stipulation to avoid potential modifications to the scientonomic body of knowledge introduced by a small number of participants. Gregory Rupik along with Jamie Shaw indicated that while quorum makes perfect sense for larger decision-making bodies, our capacity to vote should not hinge on who is absent, but rather on who is present. It was also determined that even though there is always a risk of a small group of people making big changes, or with people being unsatisfied with a modification they were not allowed to vote on, the iterative nature of our process ensures that there are easy solutions here; in addition, as Spenser summarized, most people in academic environments can be trusted to self-police. Rupik also highlighted the need to formalize the acceptance mechanism in the encyclopedia explicitly: i.e. without 3 comments with unanimity, the modification will be discussed at a workshop, and it is possible that it will remain open after the workshop, in which case we will wait until the next workshop to further discuss and modify it. Notably, since this proposal represents an attempt to formalize a voting system and closure mechanism, and itself was not subject to a specific voting system, it was decided by those present that we would accept this modification with a minimum of 2/3rds assent. The modification was accepted with overwhelming support.
Sciento-2019-0008	Workflow - Closure Mechanism	22 December 2019	Accept that a countdown mechanism is to be introduced, where a modification is accepted by default if there are no objections within a 90-day period following its publication.	18 October 2022	Not Accepted	It has been agreed that the idea of accepting a modification by default after a fixed time period might have several negative consequences. First, it may lead to the automatic acceptance of an otherwise unacceptable modification that just happened to be suggested at a time when most researchers interested in the topic were exceptionally busy.^c1 It was emphasized that if we were to allow for modifications to become accepted simply "because no one said anything" we would be giving "undue power to the mechanism of what gets accepted".^c2 This might "allow some modifications to garner more discussion than others depending on when they are published and lead to an incorrect understanding of the Scientonomic community’s evaluation of a particular modification", so we might end up with a mosaic that is not representative of the communal views.^c3 It was also agreed that acceptance by default fails to address the concern that some members of the community may be reluctant to object to a modification for a variety of reasons. It is unlikely that “having time limits, even if they are apparent and made known within our community, will incentivize explicit objection”.^c4 It was suggested that "researchers may be even more reluctant to “impede the modification’s acceptance” now that it would be an automatic process”.^c5 Finally, it was mentioned that "the implementation of this modification may result in yet another unwanted consequence: some researchers may end up submitting a negative comment simply for the sake of preventing the automatic acceptance of the modification and stopping the countdown".^c6
Sciento-2019-0009	Implication	23 December 2019	Accept the definition of implication as a logical transition from one theory to another.		Open
Sciento-2019-0010	Sufficient Reason, Reason, Support, Normative Inference	23 December 2019	Accept the new definitions of sufficient reason, reason, support, and normative inference.		Open
Sciento-2019-0011	Sufficient Reason and Theory Acceptance	23 December 2019	Accept the sufficient reason theorem and its deduction from the definition of sufficient reason and the second law.		Open
Sciento-2019-0012		24 December 2019	Accept that the phenomenological claims of classical physics are still accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective observable phenomena.		Open
Sciento-2019-0013	Method Hierarchy, Existence of Method Hierarchy	24 December 2019	Accept the existence of method hierarchies and the new definition of method hierarchy as a set of methods where theories that satisfy the requirements of methods that are higher in the hierarchy are preferred to theories that satisfy the requirements of methods that are lower in the hierarchy. Also accept the question of conceptualizing method hierarchies.		Open
Sciento-2019-0014	Epistemic Agent	26 December 2019	Accept the new definition of epistemic agent as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements.	11 October 2020	Accepted	The modification was characterized as "a very welcome addition to the scientonomic ontology" for despite all the talks of epistemic agents "the very notion of epistemic agency has remained unclear" for years,^c1 for its "strict explication has been lacking".^c2 It was agreed that the definition is an important starting point for our discussions concerning individual and communal agents.^{c3 c4} It was also noted that the definition is important for addressing the "the question of agency of epistemic tools"^c5 and the question of "the applicability of scientonomic laws to individual agents".^c6
Sciento-2019-0015	Subtypes of Epistemic Agent, Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent, Supertypes of Individual Epistemic Agent	26 December 2019	Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the question of applicability of the laws of scientific change to individuals as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry.	10 January 2022	Accepted	It was agreed during seminar discussions that the "modification aims to codify our de facto communal stance towards the ontology of epistemic agents".^c1 This is confirmed by the fact that several recent articles take this ontology of epistemic agents for granted (e.g., Barseghyan and Levesley (2021), Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)).45 Even as early as 2017, several of Loiselle's examples of authority delegation concern individual experts (see Loiselle (2017)).6
Sciento-2019-0016	Epistemic Tool, Existence of Epistemic Tool	26 December 2019	Accept the definition of epistemic tool, stating that a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	23 February 2024	Accepted	At the 2024 workshop, there was minimal discussion of this modification, as workshop participants were generally in favor of its acceptance. Jamie Shaw and Hakob Barseghyan expressed some misgivings about the definition and hoped that it could be made more succinct in the future. Specifically, it was noted that this formulation might in fact be a theorem or a law explaining how tools become epistemic tools rather than a definition. Yet, given this was the community’s only proposed definition of epistemic tool, they saw it as worth accepting with that caveat. Rebecca Muscant’s comment about what happens with systems of tools, as well as specifications that the definition only applies to physical tools (in the case of AI, only the hardware, not the software is a tool), further highlighted the need for the community to clarify the dynamics content implied by the definition in the future. At this point, the modification was accepted unanimously.
Sciento-2019-0017	Authority Delegation, Mutual Authority Delegation, One-sided Authority Delegation, Singular Authority Delegation, Multiple Authority Delegation, Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation, Associations of Community	26 December 2019	Accept the definitions of authority delegation, and its subtypes, that generalize the currently accepted definitions to apply to all epistemic agents, rather than only communities.	6 February 2023	Accepted	The commentators found the modification uncontroversial.^{c1 c2} It was noted that the modification "merely attempts to capture what is already de facto accepted - namely, the idea that authority can be delegated by and to epistemic agents of all kinds (both communal and individual)" as indicated by the "fact that the canonical examples of authority delegation often involve individual experts (see, for example, Loiselle 2017)".^c3 It was agreed that the modification "introduces a necessary rewording in the definitions of authority delegation and its species".^c4
Sciento-2019-0018	Tool Reliance, Associations of Epistemic Agent, Associations of Epistemic Tool, Existence of Tool Reliance	26 December 2019	Accept that the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Also accept the definition of tool reliance, which states that an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.	23 February 2024	Accepted	The modification was discussed during the 2024 workshop. Firstly, the similarity between this definition and the recently accepted modification suggesting a definition of epistemic tool was highlighted by the community as an indicator that this modification might require further work to separate out its definitional content from dynamics content before it could be accepted. However, most of the discussion surrounding the modification concerned, as Jamie Shaw put it, whether the distinction between authority delegation and tool reliance was a distinction without a difference. Deivide Garcia suggested that there is a meaningful difference between the two: epistemic tools are inherently passive, whereas epistemic agents inherently play an active role both in tool reliance and in authority delegation. Paul Patton highlighted several examples of “troubleshooting” epistemic tools in the history of science, which is suggestive of a relationship between the epistemic agent and the epistemic tool that differs significantly from the relationship between two epistemic agents in an authority delegation relation. Yet, Hakob Barseghyan highlighted that the process of troubleshooting of tools could be conceptualized in different terms very similar to how scientonomers already describe authority delegation relations. Joshua Allen suggested that the modification would be useful to accept anticipating further work being done on the relationship between epistemic tools and epistemic actions. Ultimately, after most participants agreed that the modification was useful in its current state, the modification was accepted with over 2/3rds majority (11 votes to accept, 4 votes to keep the modification open).
Sciento-2021-0001	Epistemic Presupposition, Logical Presupposition, Existence of Epistemic Presupposition	1 August 2021	Accept the definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition.	6 February 2023	Accepted	It was emphasized that the "modification is appealing given the presence of questions as a basic class of epistemic element in our ontology and the need to reference their presuppositions in observational scientonomy alongside proposed laws concerning questions in theoretical scientonomy".^c1 The commentators agreed that "an epistemic agent could plausibly accept all the epistemic presuppositions without necessarily accepting all the logical presuppositions".^c2 They also also noted that "accepting separate definitions of logical presupposition and epistemic presupposition would improve the specificity of our communal knowledge - and perhaps our visualization capabilities".^c3 Specifically, "there is clear value in distinguishing logical and epistemic presuppositions in scientonomic diagrams".^c4 Finally, the commentators highlighted the importance of the distinction for the law of question acceptance.^{c5 c6}
Sciento-2021-0002	Mechanism of Question Acceptance, Mechanism of Question Rejection	1 August 2021	Accept the law of question acceptance as a new scientonomic axiom, the question rejection theorem, and a number of questions for future research.	21 February 2024	Accepted	Prior to the 2024 workshop, Carlin Henikoff left a comment on the encyclopedia affirming that the modification should be accepted, but also stating that it was unclear whether it should be accepted as an axiom, per se. During the 2024 workshop, it was clarified that in our taxonomy, if X follows from something else, it is a theorem, but if not, it is an axiom. At the time of the publication of Levesley and Barseghyan’s paper, Henikoff was engaged in conversations in the scientonomy community about whether the law of question acceptance could be deducible from other scientonomic theorems. This clarified the thrust of her comment; since the law hasn't been shown to follow from any other scientonomic theories, it can only be taken as an axiom. There were also concerns about the phrasing of the law. Specifically, Jamie Shaw highlighted that the acceptance of a question cannot be predicated upon the acceptance of all of its presuppositions, simply because a question can have an infinite number of presuppositions. However, the participants were reminded of the difference between epistemic presuppositions and logical presuppositions (proposed by Levesley and Barseghyan in the previously accepted modification Sciento-2021-0001). While a question can have an infinite number of logical presuppositions (i.e. these are “explosive”), the law explicitly talks about epistemic presuppositions, which are not explosive. The modification was accepted nearly unanimously by over two-thirds majority of votes. 17 out of 18 votes were for acceptance.
Sciento-2021-0003	Error, Existence of Error	1 August 2021	Accept the definition of error, stating that 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.	8 October 2021	Accepted	It was agreed that the definition "succeeds in capturing the gist of the notion by explicitly stating that an error is always relative to an epistemic agent and to that agent's employed method".^{c1 c2} The importance of the concept of error for the Tree of Knowledge project was also noted. Specifically, it was argued that "we must be able to differentiate between those theories which were accepted in accordance with an agent’s employed method and those which were not" so that we can better understand the reasoning underlying individual transitions.^c3 Finally, it was suggested that a further distinction between “instances of honest error and misconduct” might be worth pursuing.^c4
Sciento-2021-0004	Mechanism of Error Rejection	1 August 2021	Accept that the handling of scientific error, as defined by Machado-Marques and Patton, is compatible with the theory rejection theorem.	8 October 2021	Accepted	The commentators agreed that "the historical cases of scientific error identified and treated by Machado-Marques and Patton effectively demonstrate the compatibility of instances of scientific error with the theory rejection theorem".^{c1 c2 c3} It was agreed that the rejection of a theory that was accepted erroneously can be "a result of the acceptance of other theories incompatible with it - be these some first- or second-order theories".^{c4 c5 c6} One commentator expressed a common opinion when saying that "the authors are able to put to rest concerns about the handling of scientific error potentially contravening the theory rejection theorem".^c7
Sciento-2021-0005	Existence of Element Decay, Existence of Theory Decay, Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon	1 August 2021	Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	21 February 2024	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.
Sciento-2021-0006	Subquestion, Core Question, Core Theory, Discipline, Delineating Theory, Discipline Acceptance, Subdiscipline, Associations of Discipline, Associations of Theory, Associations of Question, Existence of Discipline Acceptance, Existence of Delineating Theory, Associations of Delineating Theory, Existence of Core Theory, Existence of Core Question, Existence of Subdiscipline, Existence of Subquestion	1 August 2021	Accept new definitions of subquestion, core question, core theory, discipline, delineating theory, subdiscipline, and discipline acceptance.	21 February 2024	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),7 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.
Sciento-2022-0001	Scientific Mosaic	28 February 2022	Accept a new model-theoretic definition of scientific mosaic, according to which, a scientific mosaic is a model of all epistemic elements accepted or employed by the epistemic agent.	21 February 2024	Accepted	Nobody submitted opinions on this modification to the encyclopedia prior to the 2024 workshop. At the workshop, most of the discussion focused around the differences in wording between the earlier definition of scientific mosaic and the new one as formulated by Rawleigh. It was clarified that there is little difference in meaning between the definitions, but Rawleigh’s modification addressed the concern that the old language for describing a scientific mosaic was couched in terms of set theory, which Jamie Shaw pointed out would pose a problem for how we typically talk about mosaics (classifying mosaics by their number of elements is not particularly helpful for scientonomers). The new model-theoretic definition seemed more intuitive to some members of the community, even though neither definition commits to any syntactic view of theories. Some members of the community did not vote on the modification given their lack of experience with set theory, but overall the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 13 out of 15 votes were to accept.
Sciento-2022-0002	Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Norm Employment	28 February 2022	Accept the new law of norm employment that fixes some of the issues of the current law of method employment and makes it applicable to norms of all types.	21 February 2024	Accepted	Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia with his opinion that the modification should be accepted given that the formulation seemed relatively future-proof: it would not have to change even if more elements are included into our ontology. Paul Patton and Cameron Scott raised some concerns about the differences between norm employment and norm acceptance, and about the derivability of norms from agents’ mosaics, given cases in the history of science where agents accept a norm that is derivable from their mosaic but do not act accordingly (that is, they fail to employ the norm). However, it was noted that this is a separate issue from what the modification aims to do: the law of norm employment does not describe what happens to norms that are already present in the mosaic, but merely describes how norms come to be part of the mosaic. Yet, the discrepancy in the community’s accepted definitions of norm acceptance (as a subtype of theory acceptance) and norm employment was highlighted as a pertinent issue for later focus. After this clarification, there were no further issues raised, and the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 14 out of 16 votes were for acceptance.
Sciento-2023-0001		27 December 2023	Accept the findings concerning the acceptance and rejection of the existence of high mass-to-light ratios, flat rotation curves, and dark matter by the Western astronomy community.		Open
Sciento-2023-0002	Mechanism of Theory Rejection, Mechanism of Question Rejection, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Theories, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Normative Theories, Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Questions, Mechanism of Normative Theory Rejection	28 December 2023	Accept new formulations of the first law for theories, norms, and questions that are in tune with the formulation of the first law. Also accept new formulations of the respective rejection theorems - theory rejection, norm rejection, and question rejection.	22 January 2024	Accepted	During the 2024 workshop, the bulk of the discussion centered around the inclusion of the first law for norms and norm rejection theorem in the set of formulations to be accepted. Paul Patton contended that norm employment in general had not been demonstrated to be lawful beyond method employment, and our basic formulations should instead concern norm acceptance, which is patently lawful. He argued that the formulations should be modified to pertain either to methods only or to norm acceptance. It was decided that if the community were to remain uncomfortable with accepting Pandey’s new formulations, a revote would likely also need to be taken on Rawleigh’s Sciento-2022-0002, given that the issue of norm employment was also highlighted in discussions of that modification. After extensive discussion, Barseghyan suggested that the first law for norms would only apply to situations where behavior was norm-guided to begin with, which would skirt the difficulty that faces even behavioural psychologists of determining whether human behaviour in general is lawful. The majority of the community was comfortable with this workaround, and the modification was ultimately accepted with over 2/3rds majority assenting, with 11/14 votes to accept (although 1 voter voted to reject the modification and 2 voted to keep it open).
Sciento-2023-0003	Tautological Status of The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021), Tautological Status of Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023), Tautological Status of Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023)	28 December 2023	Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.		Open	The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2024-0001 becomes accepted.
Sciento-2023-0004		31 December 2023	Accept that noun-adjective pairs within the RSC can be indicative of communal theory acceptance.	22 February 2024	Accepted	During 2024 workshop, Andrew Wong noted that he was already using the noun-adjective pairs that this modification concerns to train AI models for the future scientonomy database project. Although Stephanie Cui pointed out that these pairs were from the RSC and as such might not be as relevant for investigating scientific change in different cultures and time periods, she still agreed that this was an excellent starting point. Hakob Barseghyan also noted that there was not as much at stake in accepting the modification as there would be in rejecting it (and essentially stating that the RSC pairs cannot ever be indicative of communal theory acceptance). Andrew Chung suggested that involving other scholars in the digital humanities could help us further refine our use of corpus linguistics strategies in the future. Thus, the acceptance of this modification would bring interdisciplinary benefits for scientonomers too. The modification was accepted unanimously (15/15 votes to accept).
Sciento-2023-0005	Epistemic Action, Existence of Epistemic Action	31 December 2023	Accept the definition of epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element.		Open
Sciento-2023-0006	Subtypes of Epistemic Action, Global Epistemic Action, Existence of Global Epistemic Action, Supertypes of Global Epistemic Action, Local Epistemic Action, Existence of Local Epistemic Action, Supertypes of Local Epistemic Action	31 December 2023	Accept that epistemic actions can be local or global. Also accept the definition of global epistemic action as an epistemic action that is available to all epistemic agents trans-historically and universally and the definition of local epistemic action as an epistemic action that is not available trans-historically to all epistemic agents, but is specific to some time periods or some agents.		Open
Sciento-2023-0007	Mechanism of Local Epistemic Action Availability, Local Action Availability	31 December 2023	Accept that the a local action A is said to be available to an epistemic agent iff that agent employs the norm “A is permissible/desirable”. Also accept the theorem of local action availability as a deductive consequence of this definition and the law of norm employment: a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility/desirability is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic.		Open	The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2023-0006 becomes accepted.
Sciento-2023-0008		31 December 2023	Accept the findings concerning the discipline dynamics of alchemy and its core questions in the Western European chymistry community.		Open
Sciento-2024-0001	Existence of Element Decay, Existence of Theory Decay	21 February 2024	Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists.	21 February 2024	Open	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.
Sciento-2024-0002		21 February 2024	Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay.	22 February 2024	Accepted	During the workshop discussion, it was established that the community was prepared to accept indicators of a phenomenon's existence even if the existence of the phenomenon were yet to be accepted. Hence this modification did not presuppose the acceptance of either Sciento-2024-0001 or Sciento-2024-0003 (the other modifications which superseded Sciento-2021-0005). There was some concern about the individual conditions that comprise the suggested indicator of element decay. It was clarified during the discussion that the suggested indicator is to be understood as one indicator with three conditions that are only jointly sufficient; these are not individually sufficient: only when all three conditions are met can we speak of an instance of theory decay. Jamie Shaw highlighted that one of the conditions prompts a question as to what constitutes assessment for a given epistemic agent and that establishing whether there was a historical instance of assessment is a tricky task. It was also briefly discussed whether the methodological conditions of listed in this modification were also actually suggestive of a basic definition of element decay. It was not possible to change the modification to vote on or highlight this, since this would no longer reflect Oh’s original intentions, but was highlighted as an open question for the scientonomy community in the future. Then, the community voted to accept the modification by over a 2/3rds majority. 11 out of 15 voters supported accepting the modification.
Sciento-2024-0003	Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon	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.

References

a b Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
^ Barseghyan, Hakob et al. (Eds.). (2022) Scientonomy: The Challenges of Constructing a Theory of Scientific Change. Vernon Press.
^ Palider, Kye et al. (2021) A Diagrammatic Notation for Visualizing Epistemic Entities and Relations. Scientonomy 4, 87-139. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37904.
^ Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. Scientonomy 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.
^ Machado-Marques, Sarah and Patton, Paul. (2021) Scientific Error and Error Handling. Scientonomy 4, 21-39. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37121.
^ Loiselle, Mirka. (2017) Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication. Scientonomy 1, 41-53. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28233.
^ Friesen, Izzy and Patton, Paul. (2023) Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy. Scientonomy 5, 93-110. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42268.

Community:Scientonomy

Contents

History

Road-map

Current Mosaic

Accepted Topics

Definitional Topics

Descriptive Topics

Normative Topics

Accepted Theories

Definitions and Ontology

Dynamics

Norms

Open Questions

Suggested Modifications

References

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Main Categories

Tools