Existence of Theory Decay

Does theory decay exist?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Sanghoon Oh in 2021. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. There are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Theory Decay in Scientonomy.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record of the Question

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 August 2021	The question of Existence of Theory Decay became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Decay. This is when the claim of the existence of theory decay has been suggested, thus introducing the term itself into scientonomic vocabulary.	Yes

All Direct Answers

The following answers have been added to this encyclopedia:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Theory Decay Exists	There is such a thing as theory decay.	2021

To add the negative answer to the question, click here.

Accepted Direct Answers

According to our records, no direct answer to this question has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this topic:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Date Assessed	Verdict	Verdict Rationale
Sciento-2021-0005	Scientonomy	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-2024-0001	Scientonomy	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.

Current View

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Theory Decay.