Oh (2021)

Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. Scientonomy 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.

Title	Element Decay
Resource Type	journal article
Author(s)	Sanghoon Oh
Year	2021
URL	https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122
DOI	https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v4i0.37122
Journal	Scientonomy
Volume	4
Pages	41-58

Abstract

This paper attempts to establish the existence of element decay by making an historical case for the existence of theory decay, a phenomenon where theories leave an agent’s mosaic without any re-evaluation or decision on the agent’s part. The phenomenon of theory decay is to be theoretically distinguished from rejection without replacement; while the latter is a result of an agent’s deliberation, the former is a result of an agent’s inaction. To locate historical instances of theory decay, there should be evidence that the agent under study existed continuously throughout the period under study, that the theory was accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point, and that the theory left the mosaic without any decision on the part of the agent. With these indicators at hand, I discuss five potentially promising historical cases: Poisson distribution, the Aharonov-Bohm effect, Damascus steel, Greek fire, and Cremonese violins. I argue that there is solid historical evidence to interpret the latter as an instance of element decay, which is sufficient to establish the existence of the phenomenon. I show that element decay is best seen as a non-scientonomic phenomenon; its existence highlights that individual and communal agents have limited capacities of knowledge retention and transmission and, when these limits are reached, element decay often takes place. This suggests that sufficient epistemic capacity to retain and transmit knowledge is a necessary precondition for the existence of scientonomic patterns, which emerge and hold only when the agent has measures in place to counteract potential element decay.

Theories

Here are all the theories formulated in Oh (2021):

Theory	Type	Formulation	Formulated In
Element Decay Exists	Descriptive	There is such a thing as element decay.	2021
Theory Decay Exists	Descriptive	There is such a thing as theory decay.	2021
Theory Decay Is a Subtype of Element Decay (Oh-2021)	Descriptive	Theory Decay is a subtype of Element Decay, i.e. element decay is a supertype of theory decay.	2021
Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)	Descriptive	Element Decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	2021

Suggested Modifications

Here are all the modifications suggested in Oh (2021):

• Sciento-2021-0005: Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 1 August 2021.1 The discussion was closed on 21 February 2024 and the modification was not accepted. Prior to the 2024 workshop, several comments were left on the encyclopedia expressing a range of opinions regarding accepting the modification. Carlin Henikoff expressed an issue with expecting scientonomers to be responsible for making existential claims regarding phenomena which lie beyond the scope of scientonomy, and highlighted the lack of clear-cut case studies in Oh’s paper, although she did not take issue with the classification of element decay as non-scientonomic or its potential usefulness in explicating mosaic dynamics. Other commenters who supported accepting the modification still identified that further observational work needed to be done on certain aspects of the modification. For example, Joshua Allen believed that more work needed to be done on Oh’s proposed list of necessary indicators, the acceptance of which was entwined with the rest of the modification.

During the discussion at the 2024 scientonomy workshop, some participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. After brief discussion led by Paul Patton about non-scientonomic phenomena and whether we have a formal definition for them in scientonomy, Hakob Barseghyan highlighted that accepting that element decay exists and accepting that element decay is non-scientonomic was being coupled in the same modification. Thus, perhaps the modification should be split into two sub-modifications that could be individually voted on, which would also address Patton and Henikoff’s concerns. Then, Izzy Friesen suggested that the modification should in fact be superseded by three modification, as the original modification essentially consists of three suggestions:

• accept the existence of element decay;
• accept the indicators of element decay;
• accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon.

After a brief discussion about the merits of splitting, the community voted on whether to split the modification two ways, three ways, or to keep it as is. The option to split the modification three ways reached a two-thirds majority. It was superseded by Sciento-2024-0001, Sciento-2024-0002 and Sciento-2024-0003.

• Sciento-2024-0001: Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 21 February 2024.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. This modification was one of the three introduced that superseded Oh’s original modification, given that members of the community wanted the option to vote separately on the three distinct modifications contained in the original proposed modification. The community found that, while there are intuitive reasons to accept element decay’s existence, the lack of observational evidence beyond Oh’s investigation of the episode of Cremonese violins brought many people pause. Rebecca Muscant noted that the risks of accepting the existence of a phenomenon prematurely overweigh the risks of keeping the question open, since showing the non-existence of a phenomenon is a much more arduous task. Deivide Oliveira suggested that, in spite of this risk, accepting the modification would allow for more instances of element decay to be identified. However, Landon See and Hakob Barseghyan pushed back, suggesting that the premature acceptance of the existence of element decay may in fact disencourage scholars from searching for other historical episodes involving element decay. They suggested that leaving the question open would be more conducive to future pursuit of the topic. It was also agreed that one clear-cut instance is necessary before the existence of element decay can be accepted. Concern about stakes more generally permeated the discussion. Although Jamie Shaw rightly identified that our community has safeguards against dogmatic practice, and is small enough that things do not slip through the cracks, concerns about premature acceptance persisted until the end of the discussion. Ultimately, then the community voted to keep the modification open by over a 2/3rds majority. 11 out of 15 votes supported keeping the modification open.
• Sciento-2024-0002: Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 21 February 2024.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
• Sciento-2024-0003: Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 21 February 2024.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending. The modification can only become accepted once modification Sciento-2024-0001 becomes accepted.