Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Revision as of 15:29, 30 March 2017 by Paul Patton (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Theory |Title=Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent |Theory Type=Descriptive |Formulation Text=If there were indeed nothing permanent in science the scientonomy wo...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an answer to the question Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent that states "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."

Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this theory:
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.Yes

Question Answered

Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: How can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?

See Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent for more details.

Description

ToDo

Reasons

No reasons are indicated for this theory.

If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.

Questions About This Theory

There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.

If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.

References

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