Changes

|Question=Ought How ought a scientonomic theory account for the acceptance of new theories by deal with the various stances that a communitymight take towards a theory? Ought How ought it to classify those stances? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for the instrumental use of theories that are not accepted as the best available description of the world? Ought it concern scientists' decisions to pursue the development of new theories?

|Description=There has been a long tradition of confusing different stances that a community can take towards a theory. Kuhn, for instance, used a number of equally vague words, including ''universally received'',''embraced'', ''acknowledged'', and ''committed'', to describe the status of theories within scientific communities.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1970c)|pp. 10-13]] ''Acceptance'' too has had a plethora of different meanings. Once the taxonomy of epistemic stances is clarified and we know the difference between ''acceptance'', ''use'', and ''pursuit'', it is important to decide identify stances for which changes in which of these stances ''ought tobe'' be traced and explained by scientonomy.

|Prehistory=In the historical literature, many different words have been used to describe the attitudes a scientific community can possibly take towards a theory, generally without any attempt to clarify their respective meanings. Barseghyan Attempts to draw distinctions between well-specified stances have occasionally been made. In the eighteenth century, [[David Hume]] distinguished between ''believing'' and ''entertaining'' a theory. [[CiteRef::Hume (1739/40) |p. 83]] [[Larry Laudan]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1977) |pp. 108-114]] and Stephen Wykstra [[CiteRef::Barseghyan Wykstra (20151980)|p. 30216]] maintained that similarly distinguished between the ''acceptance'' and the ''pursuit'' of a clear theory , and unambiguous nomenclature of the possible stances Barseghyan has argued that a scientific community can take towards similar distinction was implicit in the theory is a mustwork of [[Imre Lakatos]]. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |p.33]]|Related Topics=Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal, Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative, Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit, Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social, Scope of Scientonomy, Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale,

|Acceptance Indicators=That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the [[Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance , use, and pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.