Changes

If the gist of the theory can be traced back to a pre-scientonomic philosopher or scientist, this is the section where the credits are to be given. For instance, the ''Prehistory'' section of [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] describes how Kuhn, Laudan and other classics classic figures in the history and philosophy of science argued that our beliefs about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. Similarly, the Prehistory section of [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)]] outlines some of the major approaches to compatibility of elements within a belief system. Thus, classics of the philosophy of science, such as the writings of [[Karl Popper]], [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Imre Lakatos]], [[Paul Feyerabend]] and [[Larry Laudan]] are a great resource for this section. Also check the references cited in respective scientonomic literature.

This section of the article will be collapsed upon a reader’s entry to the webpageweb page, so they will have to click to expand this section if they want access to this pre-historical information on the subject. {{Note}} There is an important difference between the prehistory of a ''theory'' vs. the prehistory of a ''topic'': * The prehistory of a '''topic''' covers ''all'' major attempts to answer the question, i.e. a topic’s prehistory aims to answer the question “who said what on that topic?”* The prehistory of a '''theory''' must credit only those philosophers who had a similar idea. A theory’s prehistory addresses the question “who else had ideas similar to the ones expressed by the theory?” A theory’s prehistory therefore is not an opportune place to reiterate everything that has been already said in the topic’s prehistory.  For example, the prehistory of [[Mechanism of Theory Acceptance]] topic page should include all the majors philosophers and their views on theory acceptance. However, the prehistory of [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] should only indicate those authors who also held that theories become accepted when they satisfy the requirements of the method employed at the time etc. It shouldn't list Popper’s or Lakatos’s of the world (which will surely feature in the topic’s prehistory), but will likely focus on Kuhn's ideas of theory assessment, Laudan’s reticulated model, Longino’s contextualism etc.

This section states the fate of the theory in the ''scientonomic '' context, including its acceptance record, and all the modifications associated with it. Large parts of this section are generated automatically by the encyclopedia. This includes the theory's ''Acceptance Record'', ''Suggestions to Reject'', and ''Suggestions to Accept''. However, in some cases it might be necessary to include some additional information about the history of the theory, such as a textual summary of its history. It may also include other interesting details of the history that are not generated by the encyclopedia. For instance, the ''History'' section of [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)]] states that Sebastien's formulation of third law was the first to be accepted by via the scientonomic mechanism of modifications.

The text of the description of should include a theory 's exact formulation, as it will be given in "Formulation Text". Neither should it include its the formulationdiagram, its diagrams, and illustrations which will be given in "Formulation Diagram". The main goal of this section is to provide a textual description of the theory ans illustrate it by means of historical and/or hypothetical examples.  {{Note}} The '''first paragraph''' of the description will be imported on other pages of the encyclopedia which cite the theory. E.g. if the theory is currently accepted, then the respective topic page will mention not only the theory's formulation but will also show the first paragraph of the theory's description. Thus, it is important to ensure that the first paragraph of the description gives a succinct summary of the theory's major points. All the details can be saved for the following paragraphs.

{{Note}} While it might be tempting to include many examples to help illustrate the point of the theory, it is important not to multiply the number of examples without necessity. Also, do not recount one example in great historical detail. Keep in mind that the role of the encyclopedia is not to mount an argument in defense of scientonomy, but to serve as an efficient resource for those looking for concise and up-to-date information about scientonomy. So only use as many examples as necessary to make the gist of the theory clear.