Changes

|Description=Communities may take several [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances]] towards theories. Theories can be [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] by a community as the best currently available description of the world. Even when they are not so accepted, they can be deemed [[Epistemic Stances - Acceptance Theory Use and Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)|instrumentally useful]] for certain problems. They can be deemed promising and worthy of [[Theory Pursuit|pursuit]]. The question at issue here is 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 treat theories as instrumentally useful?

|Prehistory=There has been In its most general sense, the key question at issue is that of what ontological units a long tradition scientonomic theory ought to take as its subject matter. The prehistory of the descriptive topic of the [[Ontology of confusing different Scientific Change|ontological units of scientific change]] is discussed elsewhere. The prehistory of concepts of the [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances that a community can communities might take towards a theory. [[Thomas Kuhntheories]]is likewise dealt with elsewhere. The normative question at issue, for examplein its current form, used a number arises specifically within the context of equally vague words, including ''universally received'', ''embraced'', ''acknowledged'', and ''committed'' to describe the status ontology assumed by the current Barseghyan [[Theory of theories within scientific communities. Kuhn's Scientific Change|theory of scientific change regarded ]], and the units definitions of scientific change to be frameworks that he referred to its key concepts such as ''paradigms'' the [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962)Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], a term which he himself later confessed he had used in several different senses. [[CiteRef::Kuhn(1977)Theory Acceptance|pp.293-319theory acceptance]] He clarified his theory by introducing the concept of ''disciplinary matricies'', defined as those shared elements that account for the relatively unproblematic professional communication and relative unanimity of professional judgment within a scientific community. These include shared symbolic generalizations, models, and exemplars [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977)Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]] Until a proper taxonomy of , and [[Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesTheory Use|epistemic stances towards theoriestheory use]] was formulated the question at issue could not be clearly framed.|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 - Time Fields and Scale, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories, Ontology of Scientific Change, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use, Theory Pursuit,