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=There has been a long tradition of confusing different Communities may take several [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic 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.Theories can be [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1970c)Theory Acceptance|pp. 10-13accepted]] ''Acceptance'' too has had by a plethora of different meanings. Once community as the taxonomy best currently available description of epistemic stances is clarified and we know the difference between ''acceptance'', ''use''world. Even when they are not so accepted, they can be deemed [[Theory Use|instrumentally useful]] for certain problems. They can be deemed promising and ''worthy of [[Theory Pursuit|pursuit'', it ]]. The question at issue here is important to decide changes in that of which of these stances ''need a scientonomic theory account for. Ought it account only for accepted theories, or ought it also account for scientists decisions to pursue theories as worthy of further development, or their decisions to'' be traced and explained by scientonomy.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,