Test

pageThis property is a special property in this wiki.	section	videoid	startat	description	table
Authority Delegation (Overgaard-Loiselle-2016)	Description	mWciydFqP_E	753	Authority delegation explained by Gregory Rupik
Barseghyan (2018)	Abstract	oLWe6c3JV68		Hakob Barseghyan presenting the redrafted ontology
Delegation of Authority to Artifacts	Description	hQE-PdeGNY0	173	Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
René Descartes	Major Contributions	yFH7i3Lx7IA		Hakob Barseghyan's lecture on Cartesian Worldview
Discipline	Description	hQE-PdeGNY0	372	Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative Theories - Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)	Description	oLWe6c3JV68	1757	The stance of norm employment explained by Hakob Barseghyan
Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)	Description	MZ2AjYYHfrw	122	Epistemic stances explained by Barseghyan
Existence of Question	Description	hQE-PdeGNY0	509	Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
Friesen et al. (2023)	Abstract	sbxEuXQ_N4s		Scientonomy Workshop, February 25, 2023
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance	History	mWciydFqP_E	1443	The second law explained by Gregory Rupik
Modification:Sciento-2018-0013	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	5344	The workshop discussion of this modification (25.02.2023)
Modification:Sciento-2018-0014	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	7087	The workshop discussion of this modification (25.02.2023)
Modification:Sciento-2019-0001	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	1694	The workshop discussion of this modification
Modification:Sciento-2019-0002	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	2023	The workshop discussion of this modification
Modification:Sciento-2019-0003	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	2511	The workshop discussion of this modification
Modification:Sciento-2019-0004	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	2996	The workshop discussion of this modification (25.02.2023)
Modification:Sciento-2019-0005	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	4181	The workshop discussion of this modification
Modification:Sciento-2019-0006	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	4740	The workshop discussion of this modification
Modification:Sciento-2019-0007	Verdict	sbxEuXQ_N4s	59	The workshop discussion of this modification
Isaac Newton	Major Contributions	ELbm5KUYMLM		Hakob Barseghyan's lecture on Newtonian Worldview
Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)	Description	oLWe6c3JV68	1757	Norm employment explained by Barseghyan
Ontology of Scientific Change	Description	1nmOYzimL2M	97	Paul Patton's overview of the scientonomic ontology
Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016)	Description	mWciydFqP_E	554	The paradox and its resolution explained by Gregory Rupik
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Description	P5nrMUVxzEE		Hakob Barseghyan presents the workflow in action
Scientonomic Workflow (Barseghyan et al.-2016)	Description	mWciydFqP_E	35	Gregory Rupik outlines the scientonomic workflow
Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)	Description	71owGRMclu8		Presentation of scientonomy by Hakob Barseghyan
Status of Technological Knowledge	Description	hQE-PdeGNY0	444	Nicholas Overgaard explains the topic
Subtypes of Epistemic Element	History	oLWe6c3JV68	730	Barseghyan present the the redrafted ontology
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Description	BBBxJ8yYrsg	2034	The second law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)	Description	mWciydFqP_E	1443	The second law explained by Gregory Rupik
The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)	Description	BBBxJ8yYrsg	253	The third law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)	Description	mWciydFqP_E	554	Sebastien's third law explained by Gregory Rupik
The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)	Description	BBBxJ8yYrsg	253	The initial third law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)	Description	BBBxJ8yYrsg	1376	The zeroth law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)	Description	MZ2AjYYHfrw	125	Hakob Barseghyan’s lecture on pursued theories

This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."

This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy

the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at

• outlining the current state of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;
• tracing all suggested modifications to our communal knowledge;
• documenting the open questions concerning the process of scientific change.

There are currently 3,552 pages in this encyclopedia.

Featured Article Application of Scientonomy to Other Fields What is the broader relevance of scientonomy? How can scientonomy inform other fields of inquiry? In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Paul Patton in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. Read More In the news 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0007 was accepted. Prior to the 2023 workshop, Ameer Sarwar argued against the modification. First, he noted that voting is not an appropriate mechanism in science where the goal is to unearth truth.c1 Second, it is unclear how we can ensure informed voting given that some members of the community could be inactive for several years. He thus suggested that we should keep this modification open and wait until after the resolution of modifications 2019-0002 and 2019-0003 that suggest alternative ways to increase participation. During the workshop, the modification was generally well received. Before voting, there was some concern about our voting process – who can vote and when can they vote? – voiced by Josh Allen and Paul Patton. Additionally, Deivide Garcia and Amirali Atrli raised concerns about who are “allowed” to function as part of the scientonomy community. Patton also suggested introducing quorum in addition to the 2/3rds stipulation to avoid potential modifications to the scientonomic body of knowledge introduced by a small number of participants. Gregory Rupik along with Jamie Shaw indicated that while quorum makes perfect sense for larger decision-making bodies, our capacity to vote should not hinge on who is absent, but rather on who is present. It was also determined that even though there is always a risk of a small group of people making big changes, or with people being unsatisfied with a modification they were not allowed to vote on, the iterative nature of our process ensures that there are easy solutions here; in addition, as Spenser summarized, most people in academic environments can be trusted to self-police. Rupik also highlighted the need to formalize the acceptance mechanism in the encyclopedia explicitly: i.e. without 3 comments with unanimity, the modification will be discussed at a workshop, and it is possible that it will remain open after the workshop, in which case we will wait until the next workshop to further discuss and modify it. Notably, since this proposal represents an attempt to formalize a voting system and closure mechanism, and itself was not subject to a specific voting system, it was decided by those present that we would accept this modification with a minimum of 2/3rds assent. The modification was accepted with overwhelming support. Read More 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0006 was accepted. The decision was made during the 2023 workshop. Hakob Barseghyan emphasized that this modification does not grant permission to alter the body of scientonomic knowledge but simply to ensure that the pages of the encyclopedia reflect the actual state of scientonomic knowledge and that the scientonomic knowledge is stored in the most appropriate manner. Among other things, this is to handle the so-called ripple effect. Barseghyan mentioned that, while working on the encyclopedia with Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen, they had discovered several instances of ripple effect that resulted from our human lack of omniscience (e.g. a theory was supposed to be listed under Theories to Accept of a modification but wasn’t; a theory was actually accepted by the community but there was no record of it in the encyclopedia, etc.). Hence, according to Barseghyan, it would make sense to grant the editors the necessary right to adjust the respective pages to handle its consequences. Deivide Garcia wondered how such very small modifications can be tracked. Barseghyan responded that the changes in question are not meant to concern the body of scientonomic knowledge (thus, these are not modifications in the standard scientonomic sense), but are only to ensure that the encyclopedia reflects the current state of scientonomic knowledge and organizes that knowledge efficiently. Kye Palider highlighted the issue of transparency: how will the community be notified about such changes? Barseghyan suggested that an annual housekeeping paper is to be published in the Scientonomy journal as a collective report on changes to the encyclopedia. The modification was accepted. Read More 25 February 2023: Modification Sciento-2019-0005 was not accepted. At the 2023 workshop, this modification was met with concerns from the community. Firstly, the question of the equitability of star ratings was highlighted by Rebecca Muscant and Izzy Friesen. Amirali Atrli also wondered whether the problem of incentives becomes further stretched out by the five-star scale. Kye Palider noted that the up-or-down arrow that we already have on our Wiki seems simpler and more democratic than star-ranking. Alessandra Castino also mentioned that on online forums, the basis of their rating systems can discourage new commenters, and that we might see this here too. Some rating systems are also better than others – it was suggested by Joshua Allen, for example, that StackExchange’s system could provide a good model, as it incentivizes participation. Friesen highlighted that larger forums where rating systems for commentary are popular include anonymity by default, which makes this kind of recognition important, but this is not so much of an issue in the scientonomy community. Palider suggested simply listing a user’s number of comments but, as Castino emphasized, such ratings might not reflect the quality of the comments. Jamie Shaw noted that this need not necessarily be an issue since all participation grades are almost inevitably subjective and don’t necessarily reflect the quality. Deivide Garcia suggested that more thoughts needs to be put into this before any of the suggestions could be implemented. Barseghyan agreed and noted that the mediawiki platform has limitations on what can be done here, so it is unclear which of the new suggestions could be possibly implemented. Ultimately, though, the modification was rejected. Read More

Recent Suggested Modifications (all) Sciento-2024-0003: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0002: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Sciento-2024-0001: Open Sanghoon Oh Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. Read More Recent Publications (check out the journal) Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen Abstract: This paper applies Patton and Al-Zayadi’s scientonomic framework for understanding disciplines to a case study of the development of the chemical discipline ("chymistry") from the 17th century through the early 18th century in Western Europe. Using evidence from the tradition of textbook publication that emerged in the seventeenth-century chymistry, we reconstruct the top-level of the question hierarchy of chymistry. Analyzing how these questions and their associated theories were received, we first show how, starting in the 1660s, alchemy transitioned from a synonym of chymistry to chymistry’s subdiscipline with a more limited scope. We identify that the rejection of alchemy's core questions occurred in the 1720s based on the reception of these questions in scientific publications and by academic institutions. Hence, we conclude that the subdiscipline of alchemy became rejected in the 1720s. In order to conduct our case-study, we closely follow Newman and Principe's research on early modern alchemy and chymistry in our reconstruction of the episode. However, using the scientonomic framework in analyzing this case study reveals the specific dynamics of this instance of sub-discipline rejection. Our deepened understanding of this hallmark historical episode of disciplinary rejection indicates the value of Patton and Al-Zayadi’s theoretical framework for observational scientonomic research. Read More Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework Joshua Allen Abstract: In a series of publications, Hasok Chang makes the case that activities carried out by epistemic agents form the basis of the scientific enterprise. This paper provides an action-based scientonomic perspective of scientific practice. I define epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element and highlight the difference between global and local actions. The availability of a local action to an epistemic agent amounts to the agent employing the norm that the local action is permissible/desirable. To unearth the mechanism by which local actions become available to epistemic agents, I derive the local action availability theorem, according to which, a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic, i.e., from that agent’s employed norms and accepted theories. This framework is then applied to the emergence of the local action of determining the composition of chemical substances by weighing as practiced by Lavoisier and his followers; it is shown that the respective norm became employed in accord with the local action availability theorem. Read More Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England G. G. Shan Abstract: The paper investigates the applicability of corpus linguistics to the construction of a database of intellectual history. Working with the Royal Society Corpus (RSC), it presents a series of corpus queries that can aid with computationally identifying potential instances of communal theory acceptance in England during the period of 1665-1800. These queries allowed to identify a set of noun-adjective pairs potentially synonymous with “accepted theory” and retrieve around 1,400 excerpts potentially indicative of instances of communal theory acceptance. The paper also discusses some strategies for identifying the epistemic agent, as well as the RSC’s place within the broader historical context. Finally, I argue that, in addition to exploring corpus linguistics strategies, methodologies for interpreting computationally retrieved data should also be developed. Read More

From today's featured list Some text