Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Topic Type=Definitional|Description=As soon as discussions about the laws of scientific change and the field of [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]] began, scientonomists have consistently asked the two questions of ; how to define , and how to identify scientific communities. Although the term '''scientific community''' is constantly used by scientonomists, it currently lacks a scientonomic definition. Among other things, a proper scientonomic definition of the term would help clarify the scope of scientonomy.
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Question=What is '''scientific community'''? Can it be defined as more than simply “the bearer of a mosaic”?
|Authors List=Nicholas Overgaard, Felix Walpole,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2015,
|Prehistory=Scientific communities have been defined and identified variously by historians, philosophers and sociologists of science. In what follows, three waves of interpretations of scientific communities will be presented. It should be emphasized that these waves are not indicative of all attempts at defining scientific communities.
The failure of the Supradium Model was that it never consistently defined the notion of a scientific community using necessary and sufficient characteristics. An interest community was, in essence, a redefinition of the community as “bearer of a mosaic” in the sense that any interest community simply shares a set of theories and methods. Proposing interest communities offered nothing new to scientonomy. Network communities seemed important – indeed, they remain important for understanding the social elements of science – but lacked a formulation that could be incorporated into ''The Laws of Scientific Change''. They were deemed an unnecessary, but possible feature of a scientific community, to be explored – pursued, if you will – in some other way. Lastly, we had institutional communities. Institutional communities seemed the most feasible direction for defining a scientific community given ''The Laws''’ adaptation to changing historical contexts because institutional communities truly recognized themselves as communities, rather than being arbitrary characteristics imposed onto a historical case study by a researcher.
|Current View=Currently, ''scientific community'' refers to the bearer of a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. At the moment, the term lacks a proper definition. It continues to be referred to as “the bearer of a scientific mosaic”.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.249]] Yet the concept remains fundamental to the field. For, every time a scientonomist refers to a [[Theory|theory]] that is [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] or a [[Method|method]] that is [[Employed Method Employment|employed]], they actually mean a theory accepted or a method employed ''by the scientific community''.|Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Mosaic Bearers,|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Month=January
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=YesNo|Acceptance Indicators=This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
