Theory Decay Exists

This is a theory that states "There is such a thing as theory decay."

Existence of Theory Decay was formulated by Sanghoon Oh in 2021.1

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

This theory has never been accepted.

Suggestions To Accept

Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:

Modification	Community	Date Suggested	Summary	Verdict	Verdict Rationale	Date Assessed
Sciento-2021-0005	Scientonomy	1 August 2021	Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists as a non-scientonomic phenomenon.	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 Then, Izzy Friesen suggested that the modification should in fact be superseded by three modification, as the original modification essentially consists of three suggestions: accept the existence of element decay; accept the indicators of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. || 21 February 2024
Sciento-2024-0001	Scientonomy	21 February 2024	Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists.	Open	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.	21 February 2024

Question Answered

Theory Decay Exists is an attempt to answer the following question: Existence of Theory Decay.

See Existence of Theory Decay for more details.

Description

According to Oh, there is some historical evidence for theory decay.1

Reasons

No reasons are indicated for this theory.

If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.