Changes

The failure of the Supradium Model was that it never consistently defined the notion of a scientific community using necessary and sufficient characteristics. An interest community was, in essence, a redefinition of the community as “bearer of a mosaic” in the sense that any interest community simply shares a set of theories and methods. Proposing interest communities offered nothing new to scientonomy. Network communities seemed important – indeed, they remain important for understanding the social elements of science – but lacked a formulation that could be incorporated into ''The Laws of Scientific Change''. They were deemed an unnecessary, but possible feature of a scientific community, to be explored – pursued, if you will – in some other way. Lastly, we had institutional communities. Institutional communities seemed the most feasible direction for defining a scientific community given ''The Laws''’ adaptation to changing historical contexts because institutional communities truly recognized themselves as communities, rather than being arbitrary characteristics imposed onto a historical case study by a researcher.

|Current View=Currently, ''scientific community'' refers to the bearer of a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. At the moment, the term lacks a proper definition. It continues to be referred to as “the bearer of a scientific mosaic”.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.249]] Yet the concept remains fundamental to the field. For, every time a scientonomist refers to a [[Theory|theory]] that is [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] or a [[Method|method]] that is [[Method Employment|employed]], they actually mean a theory accepted or a method employed ''by the scientific community''.

|Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Law,

}}