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 it 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=Kuhn used a number of different and equally vague words, including 'universally received','embraced', 'acknowledged' and 'committed' to describe the status of Communities may take several [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances]] towards theories within scientific communities. Theories can be [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) Theory Acceptance|p. 30accepted]] Sometimes by a community as the best currently available description of the term 'accepted' is used without clarifying its meaningworld. Does it mean that scientists involved in the field have declared it to be true? or that Even when they are actually involved in its elaboration? or that not so accepted, they approve can be deemed [[Theory Use|instrumentally useful]] for certain problems. They can be deemed promising and worthy of its use in practical applications? [[Theory Pursuit|pursuit]]. The question has to do with whether scientonomy needs to develop at issue here is that of which of these stances need a taxonomy of possible statuses scientonomic theory account for. Ought it account only for scientific accepted theories, and if soor ought it also account for scientists decisions to pursue theories as worthy of further development, what it should be.or their decisions to treat theories as instrumentally useful?

|Prehistory=In its most general sense, the historical literature, many different words have been used to describe attitudes a scientific community can possibly take towards key question at issue is that of what ontological units a scientonomic theory, generally without any attempt ought to clarify their respective meaningstake as its subject matter. Barseghyan The prehistory of the descriptive topic of the [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)Ontology of Scientific Change|p. 30ontological units of scientific change]] maintained that a clear and unambiguous nomenclature is discussed elsewhere. The prehistory of concepts of the possible [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances that a scientific community can communities might take towards theories]] is likewise dealt with elsewhere. The normative question at issue, in its current form, arises specifically within the context of the ontology assumed by the current Barseghyan [[Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]], and the definitions of its key concepts such as the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]], and [[Theory Use|theory is a mustuse]].|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, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories, Ontology of Scientific Change, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use, Theory Pursuit,