https://www.scientowiki.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Hakob+Barseghyan&feedformat=atomEncyclopedia of Scientonomy - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T10:37:55ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.34.1https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=The_First_Law_(Barseghyan-2015)&diff=19817The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)2024-02-28T00:03:03Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Epistemic Elements<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=The First Law<br />
|Alternate Titles=the law of scientific inertia<br />
|Title Formula=<br />
|Text Formula=<br />
|Formulation Text=An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.<br />
|Object=<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Formulation File=The First Law Barseghyan 2015.png<br />
|Description=The following passage from [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] summarizes the gist of the law:<br />
<blockquote>According to ''the first law'', any element of the mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods remains in the mosaic except insofar as it is overthrown by another element or elements. Basically, the law assumes that there is certain inertia in the scientific mosaic: once in the mosaic, elements remain in the mosaic until they get replaced by other elements. It is reasonable therefore to call it ''the law of scientific inertia''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 123]]</blockquote><br />
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)<br />
|Prehistory=The logic behind first law of scientific change is comparable to that behind Newton's first law of motion. It identifies a 'null case' in which no outside forces are acting and therefore, nothing changes.<br />
<br />
The idea that scientific changes occur only when an alternative is available was not stated in the form of a law prior to Barseghyan's ''Laws of Scientific Change''[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]], but the idea is implicit in past concepts of scientific change. Although Karl Popper stressed the importance of empirical falsification in his view of scientific theories, he did not believe a theory with falsifying instances should be abandoned unless a better substitute was available.[[CiteRef::Thornton (2016)]] "In most cases", he wrote, "before falsifying a hypothesis we have another one up our sleeve".[[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]] <br />
<br />
Thomas Kuhn wrote of paradigms,[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] or later of a disciplinary matrix,[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)]] as the set of shared commitments held by members of a scientific community, including theories, concepts, and methods. What Kuhn called normal science was the task of expanding the range of phenomena that could be explained in terms of the paradigm. He believed that this task seldom produced major novelties. The opportunity for fundamental change arose only during a crisis produced by the accumulation of anomalous findings that resisted explanation in the terms of the paradigm. Kuhn wrote that "falsification, though it surely occurs, does not happen with, or simply because of, the emergence of an anomaly or falsifying instance. Instead... it consists in the triumph of a new paradigm over the old one".[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|p. 147]]<br />
<br />
Lakatos similarly wrote that "Contrary to naive falsificationism, ''no experiment, experimental report, observation statement or well-corroborated low-level falsifying hypothesis alone can lead to falsification. There is no falsification before the emergence of a better theory''" (Emphasis original).[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1970)|p. 35]]<br />
|History=The first law of scientific change was introduced by Hakob Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] in 2015.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] It has not subsequently been modified.<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=Yes<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=The law became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Associations_of_Hierarchical_Authority_Delegation&diff=19816Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation2024-02-23T17:37:52Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Ontological Topic |Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation |Ontological Question Type=Associations |Description= |Prehistory= |History= |Current View= |Parent Topic= |Sorting..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ontological Topic<br />
|Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation<br />
|Ontological Question Type=Associations<br />
|Description=<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=<br />
|Page Status=Stub<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Subtypes_of_Hierarchical_Authority_Delegation&diff=19815Subtypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation2024-02-23T17:37:49Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Ontological Topic |Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation |Ontological Question Type=Subtypes |Description= |Prehistory= |History= |Current View= |Parent Topic= |Sorting Ord..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ontological Topic<br />
|Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation<br />
|Ontological Question Type=Subtypes<br />
|Description=<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=<br />
|Page Status=Stub<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Disjointness_of_Hierarchical_Authority_Delegation&diff=19814Disjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation2024-02-23T17:37:47Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Ontological Topic |Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation |Ontological Question Type=Disjointness |Description= |Prehistory= |History= |Current View= |Parent Topic= |Sorting..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ontological Topic<br />
|Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation<br />
|Ontological Question Type=Disjointness<br />
|Description=<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=<br />
|Page Status=Stub<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Existence_of_Hierarchical_Authority_Delegation&diff=19813Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation2024-02-23T17:37:44Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Ontological Topic |Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation |Ontological Question Type=Existence |Description= |Prehistory= |History= |Current View= |Parent Topic= |Sorting Or..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ontological Topic<br />
|Term=Hierarchical Authority Delegation<br />
|Ontological Question Type=Existence<br />
|Description=<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=<br />
|Page Status=Stub<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19812Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-23T17:28:45Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
<br />
==Modifications Moved to the Next Workshop==<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
|Participants List=Andrew Chung, Cameron Scott, Deivide Garcia, Hakob Barseghyan, Izzy Friesen, Jamie Shaw, Juan Serrano Reyes, Kye Palider, Landon See, Letizia Marcelja, Nichole Levesley, Nora Zolfaghari, Paul Patton, Rebecca Muscant, Stephanie Cui<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=The_Law_of_Norm_Employment_(Rawleigh-2022)&diff=19811The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)2024-02-23T11:14:07Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Title=The Law of Norm Employment<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Formulation Text=A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.<br />
|Formulation File=The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022).png<br />
|Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment<br />
|Authors List=William Rawleigh<br />
|Formulated Year=2022<br />
|Description=[[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Sebastien's law of method employment]] faces several problems. Foremost among these is that it is based on an outdated ontology that assumes that methods of theory evaluation are a fundamental epistemic element. After the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|Barseghyan’s proposal]] that methods be subsumed under the category of normative theories, the third law no longer exhaustively covers all situations cases of employment. In its present form it is limited to methods, though there is no reason to think that the mechanism by which a method is employed is any different than the mechanism by which any other norm is employed. <br />
<br />
In addition, Sebastien's formulation of the third law uses the term ''deducible'', which currently lacks a scientonomic definition. We do not currently know what it means for something to be deducible, what the criteria of deducibility would be, or whether the conditions of deducibility would be part of the first-order theories of the mosaic or part of the second-order theories that range over the mosaic. <br />
<br />
The third issue with Sebastien's formulation is that, with the acceptance of questions into the epistemic elements of the ontology of scientific change, the elements of the mosaic are now more expansive than just theories and subtypes of theories. This means that there is a plausible situation in which norms could potentially be derived – at least in part – from questions, which means that a formulation of the third law that excludes questions would fail to comprehensively describe all cases of norm employment. <br />
<br />
The new law of norm employment aims to remedy all three of these issues:<br />
* the formulation of the covers all norms rather than only methods;<br />
* it replaces a ''deducible'' with ''derivable'', which in the context of mathematical model theory simply means to ''be semantically entailed'', and thus can potentially include non-deductive inferences (e.g. inductive, abductive);<br />
* it replaces a specific enumeration of epistemic elements with a general "elements of the mosaic". <br />
<br />
This formulation also offers the slight clarification that derivability strictly deals with derivation from a ''finite'' number of other elements.<br />
|Resource=Rawleigh (2022)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19810Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-23T11:02:58Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2024-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
|Participants List=Andrew Chung, Cameron Scott, Deivide Garcia, Hakob Barseghyan, Izzy Friesen, Jamie Shaw, Juan Serrano Reyes, Kye Palider, Landon See, Letizia Marcelja, Nichole Levesley, Nora Zolfaghari, Paul Patton, Rebecca Muscant, Stephanie Cui<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19809Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-23T11:02:13Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
|Participants List=Andrew Chung, Cameron Scott, Deivide Garcia, Hakob Barseghyan, Izzy Friesen, Jamie Shaw, Juan Serrano Reyes, Kye Palider, Landon See, Letizia Marcelja, Nichole Levesley, Nora Zolfaghari, Paul Patton, Rebecca Muscant, Stephanie Cui<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19808Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-23T10:57:22Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
<br />
|Participants List=<br />
|Modifications List=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19807Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-22T17:50:40Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
|Participants List=<br />
|Modifications List=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2023-0003&diff=19806Modification:Sciento-2023-00032024-02-22T17:38:05Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2023<br />
|Date Suggested Month=December<br />
|Date Suggested Day=28<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey<br />
|Resource=Pandey (2023)<br />
|Preamble=There are a number of scenarios of theory replacement allowed by the first law, such as the replacement by negation, the replacement by an answer to a different question, the replacement that involves the rejection of the question, and the replacement by a higher-order proposition. The only scenario that the first law forbids is that of the rejection without any replacement whatsoever, as in the cases of element decay. The very existence of the phenomenon of element decay, therefore, poses a problem for the first law: if element decay is forbidden by the first law, then does this imply that the first law has been falsified? This brought us to our dilemma: either (1) exclude the cases of rejection without replacement from the scope of scientonomy and admit that the first law is a tautology or (2) include the cases of rejection without replacement into the scope of scientonomy and admit that such cases present a serious anomaly for the first law. <br />
<br />
The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)<br />
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0003&diff=19805Modification:Sciento-2024-00032024-02-22T15:52:57Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=The mere existence of element decay doesn't necessarily imply that the phenomenon itself is within the scope of scientonomy. Due to its non-epistemic nature, it seems justified to consider element decay as being non-scientonomic in nature.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)<br />
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19804Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T15:52:30Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Hakob Barseghyan moved page Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021) to Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021) without leaving a redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Non-Scientonomic<br />
|Formulation Text=<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19803Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T15:51:59Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Non-Scientonomic<br />
|Formulation Text=<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0002&diff=19799Modification:Sciento-2024-00022024-02-22T15:27:24Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept a list of necessary indicators of ''theory decay''.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=To identify historical cases of theory decay, we need a list of historical indicators. It seems that to legitimately claim that episode ''x'' involved theory decay, we must be able to show that we are dealing with a continuous epistemic agent that existed throughout the transition in question, that there was a change from theory acceptance to unacceptance, and that the unacceptance took place without any assessment by that agent.<br />
|Modification=Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay (all three conditions must obtain):<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
|To Accept=<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2021-0005&diff=19798Modification:Sciento-2021-00052024-02-22T15:26:53Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists as a ''non-scientonomic'' phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2021<br />
|Date Suggested Month=August<br />
|Date Suggested Day=1<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the non-scientific phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
|Modification=Accept that there is ''element decay'', a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.<br />
<br />
Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay:<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
<br />
Also accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Exists, Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021), Theory Decay Exists<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Not Accepted<br />
|Date Assessed Year=2021<br />
|Date Assessed Month=February<br />
|Date Assessed Day=21<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=During the discussion at the [[Scientonomy Workshop 2024|2024 scientonomy workshop]], several participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. Specifically, it was agreed that the modification essentially consists of three suggestions:<br />
* accept the existence of element decay;<br />
* accept the indicators of element decay;<br />
* accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
A vote was taken and by the 2/3 majority it was decided to split this modification into three.<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001, Modification:Sciento-2024-0002, Modification:Sciento-2024-0003<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2021-0005&diff=19797Modification:Sciento-2021-00052024-02-22T15:26:06Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists as a ''non-scientonomic'' phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2021<br />
|Date Suggested Month=August<br />
|Date Suggested Day=1<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the non-scientific phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
|Modification=Accept that there is ''element decay'', a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.<br />
<br />
Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay (all three conditions must obtain):<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
<br />
Also accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Exists, Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021), Theory Decay Exists<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Not Accepted<br />
|Date Assessed Year=2021<br />
|Date Assessed Month=February<br />
|Date Assessed Day=21<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=During the discussion at the [[Scientonomy Workshop 2024|2024 scientonomy workshop]], several participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. Specifically, it was agreed that the modification essentially consists of three suggestions:<br />
* accept the existence of element decay;<br />
* accept the indicators of element decay;<br />
* accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
A vote was taken and by the 2/3 majority it was decided to split this modification into three.<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001, Modification:Sciento-2024-0002, Modification:Sciento-2024-0003<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0003&diff=19796Modification:Sciento-2024-00032024-02-22T14:56:04Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that element decays is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=The mere existence of element decay doesn't necessarily imply that the phenomenon itself is within the scope of scientonomy. Due to its non epistemic nature, it seems justified to consider element decay as being non scientonomic in nature.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)<br />
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2023-0003&diff=19795Modification:Sciento-2023-00032024-02-22T14:30:04Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2023<br />
|Date Suggested Month=December<br />
|Date Suggested Day=28<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey<br />
|Resource=Pandey (2023)<br />
|Preamble=There are a number of scenarios of theory replacement allowed by the first law, such as the replacement by negation, the replacement by an answer to a different question, the replacement that involves the rejection of the question, and the replacement by a higher-order proposition. The only scenario that the first law forbids is that of the rejection without any replacement whatsoever, as in the cases of element decay. The very existence of the phenomenon of element decay, therefore, poses a problem for the first law: if element decay is forbidden by the first law, then does this imply that the first law has been falsified? This brought us to our dilemma: either (1) exclude the cases of rejection without replacement from the scope of scientonomy and admit that the first law is a tautology or (2) include the cases of rejection without replacement into the scope of scientonomy and admit that such cases present a serious anomaly for the first law. <br />
<br />
The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)<br />
|Parent Modifications=<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2023-0003&diff=19794Modification:Sciento-2023-00032024-02-22T14:29:14Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the first law and its corollaries are tautologies. Also accept that the rejection theorems are tautologies.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2023<br />
|Date Suggested Month=December<br />
|Date Suggested Day=28<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey<br />
|Resource=Pandey (2023)<br />
|Preamble=There are a number of scenarios of theory replacement allowed by the first law, such as the replacement by negation, the replacement by an answer to a different question, the replacement that involves the rejection of the question, and the replacement by a higher-order proposition. The only scenario that the first law forbids is that of the rejection without any replacement whatsoever, as in the cases of element decay. The very existence of the phenomenon of element decay, therefore, poses a problem for the first law: if element decay is forbidden by the first law, then does this imply that the first law has been falsified? This brought us to our dilemma: either (1) exclude the cases of rejection without replacement from the scope of scientonomy and admit that the first law is a tautology or (2) include the cases of rejection without replacement into the scope of scientonomy and admit that such cases present a serious anomaly for the first law. <br />
<br />
The suggestion is to opt for the first option, as it seems the lesser of two evils. One consideration in support of this option, is that the procedure of limiting the scope is ubiquitous in many other fields of inquiry; thus, there is nothing inherently vicious in excluding certain non-epistemic phenomena (such as element decay) from the scope of our discipline. Also, a parallel can be drawn between the scientonomic first law and Newton’s first law: while the latter too has been considered tautological, not many have thought that it is necessarily a serious problem. Thus, the tautological nature of our first law is not inevitably problematic.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Norm Rejection theorem (Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Question Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Levesley-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Norms (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Questions (Barseghyan-Levesley-2021) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), The First Law for Theories (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Pandey-2023), Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) is Tautological (Pandey-2023)<br />
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0003&diff=19793Modification:Sciento-2024-00032024-02-22T12:37:10Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that element decays is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=The mere existence of element decay doesn't necessarily imply that the phenomenon itself is within the scope of scientonomy. Due to its non epistemic nature, it seems justified to consider element decay as being non scientonomic in nature.<br />
|Modification=<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification_talk:Sciento-2024-0003&diff=19792Modification talk:Sciento-2024-00032024-02-22T12:36:46Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{ModificationTalk}}"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ModificationTalk}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0003&diff=19791Modification:Sciento-2024-00032024-02-22T12:36:33Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Modification |Community=Community:Scientonomy |Acronym=Sciento |Summary=Accept that element decays is a non scientonomic phenomenon. |Date Suggested Year=2024 |Date Suggeste..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that element decays is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=The mere existence of element decay doesn't necessarily imply that the phenomenon itself is within the scope of scientonomy. Due to its non epistemic nature, it seems justified to consider element decay as being non scientonomic in nature.<br />
|Modification=Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)<br />
|To Accept=<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification_talk:Sciento-2024-0001&diff=19790Modification talk:Sciento-2024-00012024-02-22T12:33:53Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{ModificationTalk}}"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ModificationTalk}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification_talk:Sciento-2024-0002&diff=19789Modification talk:Sciento-2024-00022024-02-22T12:33:41Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{ModificationTalk}}"</p>
<hr />
<div>{{ModificationTalk}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0002&diff=19788Modification:Sciento-2024-00022024-02-22T12:33:28Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Modification |Community=Community:Scientonomy |Acronym=Sciento |Summary=Accept a list of necessary indicators of ''theory decay''. |Date Suggested Year=2024 |Date Suggested..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept a list of necessary indicators of ''theory decay''.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=To identify historical cases of theory decay, we need a list of historical indicators. It seems that to legitimately claim that episode ''x'' involved theory decay, we must be able to show that we are dealing with a continuous epistemic agent that existed throughout the transition in question, that there was a change from theory acceptance to unacceptance, and that the unacceptance took place without any assessment by that agent.<br />
|Modification=Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay:<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
|To Accept=<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2021-0005&diff=19787Modification:Sciento-2021-00052024-02-22T12:29:17Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists as a ''non-scientonomic'' phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2021<br />
|Date Suggested Month=August<br />
|Date Suggested Day=1<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the non-scientific phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
|Modification=Accept that there is ''element decay'', a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.<br />
<br />
Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay:<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
<br />
Also accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Exists, Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021), Theory Decay Exists<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Not Accepted<br />
|Date Assessed Year=2021<br />
|Date Assessed Month=February<br />
|Date Assessed Day=21<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=During the discussion at the [[Scientonomy Workshop 2024|2024 scientonomy workshop]], several participants raised a concern that the original modification makes several sufficiently distinct claims that must be evaluated separately. Specifically, it was agreed that the modification essentially consists of three suggestions:<br />
* accept the existence of element decay;<br />
* accept the indicators of element decay;<br />
* accept that element decay is a non scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
A vote was taken and by the 2/3 majority it was decided to split this modification into three.<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001, Modification:Sciento-2024-0002, Modification:Sciento-2024-0003<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2024-0001&diff=19786Modification:Sciento-2024-00012024-02-22T12:24:50Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Modification |Community=Community:Scientonomy |Acronym=Sciento |Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists. |Date Suggested Year=2024 |Date Suggested Mon..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2024<br />
|Date Suggested Month=February<br />
|Date Suggested Day=21<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
|Modification=Accept that there is ''element decay'', a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Exists, Theory Decay Exists<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Modification:Sciento-2021-0005&diff=19785Modification:Sciento-2021-00052024-02-22T12:22:22Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Modification<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Acronym=Sciento<br />
|Summary=Accept that the phenomenon of ''element decay'' exists as a ''non-scientonomic'' phenomenon.<br />
|Date Suggested Year=2021<br />
|Date Suggested Month=August<br />
|Date Suggested Day=1<br />
|Date Suggested Approximate=No<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Preamble=Cases of rediscovery in the history of sciences (e.g. Poisson distribution, Aharonov-Bohm effect, Cremonese violins) appear in direct violation of the first law of scientific change. The suggested modification offers an explanation through the non-scientific phenomenon of element decay, where elements of an agent’s mosaic (such as questions, methods, and theories) cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
|Modification=Accept that there is ''element decay'', a phenomenon where elements of an agent’s mosaic cease to be part of the mosaic without any re-evaluation by the agent or any decision to reject that element.<br />
<br />
Accept the following as necessary indicators of theory decay:<br />
* ''Agent Continuity'': there should be historical evidence that the agent in question continuously existed during the time period under study. <br />
* ''Change from Theory Acceptance to Unacceptance'': there should be clear indications of a theory being accepted at some point and unaccepted at some later point. <br />
* ''Theory Unacceptance Without Assessment'': there should be clear evidence that the theory became unaccepted without any theoretical assessment on the part of the agent. <br />
<br />
Also accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon.<br />
|To Accept=Element Decay Exists, Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021), Theory Decay Exists<br />
|Automatic=No<br />
|Verdict=Open<br />
|Date Assessed Year=<br />
|Date Assessed Month=<br />
|Date Assessed Day=<br />
|Date Assessed Approximate=No<br />
|Verdict Rationale=<br />
|Verdict Chart=<br />
|Superseded By=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19784Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T12:21:55Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Non Scientonomic<br />
|Formulation Text=<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19783Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T12:21:29Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Not Scientonomic<br />
|Formulation Text=<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Is_Element_Decay_a_Scientonomic_Phenomenon&diff=19782Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon2024-02-22T12:21:09Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Ontology<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=Yes<br />
|Question Text Formula=Is <subject> a scientonomic phenomenon?<br />
|Question Title Formula=Is <Subject> a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Question=<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Boolean<br />
|Object Value True=Scientonomic<br />
|Object Value False=Non Scientonomic<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Description=Is the phenomenon of element decay within the scope of scientonomy? If it is considered a scientonomic phenomenon, then it has to be accounted for by scientonomy.<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=900<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19781Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T12:20:44Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Hakob Barseghyan moved page Element Decay Is a Not Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021) to Element Decay Is a Non Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021) without leaving a redirect</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Not Scientonomic<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Element_Decay_Is_a_Non-Scientonomic_Phenomenon_(Oh-2021)&diff=19780Element Decay Is a Non-Scientonomic Phenomenon (Oh-2021)2024-02-22T12:20:24Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Theory |Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon |Theory Type=Descriptive |Subject=Element Decay |Predicate= |Title= |Alternate Titles= |Title Formula=<Subject> Is a..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Title=<br />
|Alternate Titles=<br />
|Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Object=Not Scientonomic<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description=Element decay is not a scientonomic phenomenon and, thus, is outside of the scope of scientonomy.<br />
|Resource=Oh (2021)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Is_Element_Decay_a_Scientonomic_Phenomenon&diff=19779Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon2024-02-22T12:19:13Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Ontology<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=Yes<br />
|Question Text Formula=Is <subject> a scientonomic phenomenon?<br />
|Question Title Formula=Is <Subject> a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Question=<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Boolean<br />
|Object Value True=Scientonomic<br />
|Object Value False=Not Scientonomic<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<Subject> is <an object> phenomenon.<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<Subject> Is a <Object> Phenomenon<br />
|Description=Is the phenomenon of element decay within the scope of scientonomy? If it is considered a scientonomic phenomenon, then it has to be accounted for by scientonomy.<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=900<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Is_Element_Decay_a_Scientonomic_Phenomenon&diff=19778Is Element Decay a Scientonomic Phenomenon2024-02-22T12:15:07Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Topic |Subject=Element Decay |Topic Type=Descriptive |Subfield=Ontology |Inherited From= |Heritable=Yes |Question Text Formula=Is <subject> a scientonomic phenomenon? |Quest..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Element Decay<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Ontology<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=Yes<br />
|Question Text Formula=Is <subject> a scientonomic phenomenon?<br />
|Question Title Formula=Is <Subject> a Scientonomic Phenomenon<br />
|Question=<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Boolean<br />
|Object Value True=Yes<br />
|Object Value False=No<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=Is the phenomenon of element decay within the scope of scientonomy? If it is considered a scientonomic phenomenon, then it has to be accounted for by scientonomy.<br />
|Authors List=Sanghoon Oh<br />
|Formulated Year=2021<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Sorting Order=900<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_Workshop_2024&diff=19777Scientonomy Workshop 20242024-02-21T10:38:26Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: Created page with "{{Scientonomy Workshop |Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon |Start Year=2024 |Start Month=February |Start Day=21 |End Year=2024 |End Month=February |End Day=23 |URL= |Su..."</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Scientonomy Workshop<br />
|Title=Second Scientonomy Workshop, Lisbon<br />
|Start Year=2024<br />
|Start Month=February<br />
|Start Day=21<br />
|End Year=2024<br />
|End Month=February<br />
|End Day=23<br />
|URL=<br />
|Summary===Agenda==<br />
During the workshop, we will discuss the modifications suggested in the following papers:<br />
<br />
===Historical Modifications===<br />
We will first discuss what should be done about the modifications that make historical claims, such as:<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0008]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0011]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0012]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0001]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0008]]<br />
<br />
===Rawleigh (2022)===<br />
Rawleigh, William. (2022) Reconceiving Scientific Mosaics: A New Formalization for Theoretical Scientonomy. In Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022), 83-103.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0001]] <br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2022-0002]]<br />
<br />
===Barseghyan & Levesley (2021)===<br />
Barseghyan, Hakob and Levesley, Nichole. (2021) Question Dynamics. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 1-19. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37120.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0002]] <br />
<br />
===Patton & Al-Zayadi (2021)===<br />
Patton, Paul and Al-Zayadi, Cyrus. (2021) Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 59-85. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37123.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0006]] <br />
<br />
===Oh (2021)===<br />
Oh, Sanghoon. (2021) Element Decay. ''Scientonomy'' 4, 41-58. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/37122.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0005]]<br />
<br />
===Pandey (2023)===<br />
Pandey, Aayu. (2023) Dilemma of the First Law. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 25-46. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42258.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0002]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0003]]<br />
<br />
===Palider (2019)===<br />
Palider, Kye. (2019) Reasons in the Scientonomic Ontology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 15-31. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33557.<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0009]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0010]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0011]]<br />
<br />
===Patton, Overgaard, & Barseghyan (2017)===<br />
Patton, Paul; Overgaard, Nicholas and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2017) Reformulating the Second Law. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0006]]<br />
<br />
===Shan (2023)===<br />
Shan, G. G. (2023) Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 47-71. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42259.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0004]]<br />
<br />
===Mercuri & Barseghyan (2019)===<br />
Mercuri, Mathew and Barseghyan, Hakob. (2019) Method Hierarchies in Clinical Epidemiology. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 45-61. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33559.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0013]]<br />
<br />
===Overgaard (2017)===<br />
Overgaard, Nicholas. (2017) A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change. ''Scientonomy'' 1, 55-62. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/28234.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0013]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0014]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0015]]<br />
<br />
===Patton (2019)===<br />
Patton, Paul. (2019) Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy. ''Scientonomy'' 3, 63-89. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/33621.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0016]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0018]] <br />
<br />
===Allen (2023)===<br />
Allen, Joshua. (2023) Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework. ''Scientonomy'' 5, 73-91. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/42266.<br />
<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0005]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0006]]<br />
* [[Modification:Sciento-2023-0007]]<br />
<br />
|Participants List=<br />
|Modifications List=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=The_Second_Law_(Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)&diff=19776The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)2024-02-16T14:38:45Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Title=The Second Law<br />
|Theory Type=Descriptive<br />
|Alternate Titles=law of theory acceptance<br />
|Formulation Text=If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.<br />
|Formulation File=The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).png<br />
|Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance<br />
|Authors List=Paul Patton, Nicholas Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan,<br />
|Formulated Year=2017<br />
|Description=According to this formulation of the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted. <br />
<br />
Unlike [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the previous formulation of the second law]], this formulation makes the causal connection between ''theory assessment outcomes'' and ''cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance'' explicit. In particular, it specifies what happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when a certain assessment outcome obtains.<br />
<br />
In addition, this new formulation is clearly ''not'' a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.<br />
|Resource=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)<br />
|History=[[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)|The previous formulation of the second law]], originally proposed by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']],[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129]] didn't specify the causal relations between ''theory assessment outcomes'' and the ''actual acceptance or non-acceptance of a theory''. All it accomplished is stating that a theory is assessed by the method employed at the time. This is a flaw, as any law of theory acceptance should specify what exactly happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when an assessment outcome obtains.<br />
<br />
As a result, it wasn't even clear whether the second law had any empirical content or whether it was a tautology. While Barseghyan held that it ''was'' a tautology,[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 129, footnote 18]] its actual status as a tautology has been questioned almost from the outset (see [[Tautological Status of the Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] for details).<br />
<br />
In short, a new formulation of the second law was required that would fix these flaws. Thus, a new formulation was proposed which explicitly stated causal relationships between different theory assessment outcomes and actual cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance. By forbidding a number of logically possible combinations (e.g. Satisfied → Not Accept), this formulation made it clear that the law is ''not'' a tautology.<br />
|Page Status=Editor Approved<br />
}}<br />
{{YouTube Video<br />
|VideoID=mWciydFqP_E<br />
|VideoStartAt=1443<br />
|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik<br />
|VideoEmbedSection=Description<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2017<br />
|Accepted From Month=November<br />
|Accepted From Day=29<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=The law became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|suggested modification]].<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Mechanism_of_Method_Employment&diff=19775Mechanism of Method Employment2024-02-14T11:32:04Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Method Employment<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Dynamics<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=How do [[Method|methods]] become [[Norm Employment|employed]] by an epistemic agent?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=When the classical philosophy of science finally came to terms with the fact that [[Method|methods]] of theory assessment do in fact change through time, the question became ''how'' exactly they change. Since circa 1980, explaining the process of transitions from one employed method to the next has been one of the most challenging tasks for any theory of scientific change. A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of scientific change.<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Prehistory=A number of philosophers of science addressed the question of method employment before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. <br />
<br />
[[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'']] as part of his conception of paradigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] <br />
<br />
[[Dudley Shapere]] greatly developed the idea of beliefs affecting methods of theory evaluation in his [[Shapere (1980)|''The Character of Scientific Change'']], where he argued that the criteria scientists employ in theory assessment are not transcendent to science but are an integral part of it.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]<br />
<br />
Similarly, in his [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], [[Larry Laudan]] argued that the discovery of previously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-39]]<br />
<br />
The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[Ernan McMullin]]. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]] <br />
<br />
There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]]). <br />
<br />
[[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]]<br />
<br />
[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]<br />
|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2017 it was Barseghyan's [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|original third law]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]] In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|resolved]] by [[Zoe Sebastien]]. Sebastien's [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|reformulation of the law]] made it explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet ''compatible'' with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]]. Sebastien's formulation became accepted in 2017.<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment<br />
|Sorting Order=300<br />
|Page Status=Editor Approved<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
|Order=1<br />
|Related Theories=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Mechanism_of_Method_Employment&diff=19774Mechanism of Method Employment2024-02-14T11:30:57Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Method Employment<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Dynamics<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=How do [[Method|methods]] become [[Norm Employment|employed]] by an epistemic agent?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=When the classical philosophy of science finally came to terms with the fact that [[Method|methods]] of theory assessment do in fact change through time, the question became ''how'' exactly they change. Since circa 1980, explaining the process of transitions from one employed method to the next has been one of the most challenging tasks for any theory of scientific change. A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of scientific change.<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Prehistory=A number of philosophers of science addressed the question of method employment before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. <br />
<br />
[[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'']] as part of his conception of paradigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] <br />
<br />
[[Dudley Shapere]] greatly developed the idea of beliefs affecting methods of theory evaluation in his [[Shapere (1980)|''The Character of Scientific Change'']], where he argued that the criteria scientists employ in theory assessment are not transcendent to science but are an integral part of it.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]<br />
<br />
Similarly, in his [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], [[Larry Laudan]] argued that the discovery of previously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-39]]<br />
<br />
The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[Ernan McMullin]]. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]] <br />
<br />
There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]]). <br />
<br />
[[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]]<br />
<br />
[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]<br />
|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2017 it was Barseghyan's [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|original third law]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]] In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|resolved]] by [[Zoe Sebastien]]. In her [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|reformulation of the law]], Sebastien made explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet ''compatible'' with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]]. Sebastien's formulation became accepted in 2017.<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment<br />
|Sorting Order=300<br />
|Page Status=Editor Approved<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
|Order=1<br />
|Related Theories=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Mechanism_of_Norm_Employment&diff=19773Mechanism of Norm Employment2024-02-14T11:23:24Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Norm Employment<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Dynamics<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=How do [[Normative Theory|norms]] become [[Norm Employment|employed]] by an epistemic agent?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=As norms of any type - methods, ethical norms, aesthetic norms, etc. - can change through time, it is important to inquire as to ''how'' exactly they change. A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of the mechanism of scientific change.<br />
|Authors List=William Rawleigh<br />
|Formulated Year=2022<br />
|Prehistory=One aspect of the question of the mechanism of norm employment - that of ''method'' employment has been addressed by a number of philosophers of science before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. <br />
<br />
[[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'']] as part of his conception of paradigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] <br />
<br />
[[Dudley Shapere]] greatly developed the idea of beliefs affecting methods of theory evaluation in his [[Shapere (1980)|''The Character of Scientific Change'']], where he argued that the criteria scientists employ in theory assessment are not transcendent to science but are an integral part of it.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]<br />
<br />
Similarly, in his [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], [[Larry Laudan]] argued that the discovery of previously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-39]]<br />
<br />
The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[Ernan McMullin]]. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]] <br />
<br />
There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]]). <br />
<br />
[[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]]<br />
<br />
[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]<br />
|History=Norms only became part of the scientonomic ontology in 2017 with the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0001|Sebastien's modification]] that introduced normative theories one of as types of theory. With the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|Barseghyan's redrafted ontology]] in 2019, methods became subsumed under the category of normative theory and employment became a stance that epistemic agents could take towards norms of all types, not just methods. This should have suggested the question of the mechanism of norm employment; yet, as formulating questions is often a creative process, it wasn't until [[Rawleigh (2022)|Rawleigh's 2022 paper]] that the question was explicitly formulated, together with a formulation of an answer to it - [[The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022)|the law of norm employment]].<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Theory Acceptance<br />
|Sorting Order=300<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
|Order=1<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2022<br />
|Accepted From Month=February<br />
|Accepted From Day=28<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is the date of the publication of [[Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022)|the collected volume]] that included [[Rawleigh (2022)|Rawleigh's paper]], which indicates that the question is itself came to be considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Mechanism_of_Theory_Acceptance&diff=19772Mechanism of Theory Acceptance2024-02-14T11:22:39Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Theory Acceptance<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Dynamics<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=How do [[Theory|theories]] become [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] into a mosaic?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=The question of theory acceptance is one of the central problems of theoretical [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. Any scientonomic theory should explain how theories become part of a mosaic. It is clear that epistemic agents replaces their theories with theories that they considers superior, and they do this on a regular basis. Thus, the question is ''how'' epistemic agents accept theories.<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Prehistory=This question has been one of the central topics of the philosophy of science. Initially, philosophy held a static conception of science. [[Immanuel Kant]] believed that the axioms of Newtonian mechanics were ''a priori'' synthetic propositions. [[CiteRef::Kant (1781)]] Philosophers believed in a static conception of science because no scientific revolution had been experienced since the advent of modern science. While Scientonomy recognizes the transition from the Aristotelian-Medieval method to the Newtonian world view as a scientific revolution, this was not the case historically.<br />
<br />
The scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century caused philosophers of science to wonder how science accepts its theories. In his [[Popper (1959)|''Logic of Scientific Discovery'']], [[Karl Popper]] argued that old theories are replaced by new theories when an old theory is falsified and a new theory is corroborated in by experimental evidence. This occurs when an experiment successfully tests a bold conjecture made by the new theory.[[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]] <br />
<br />
A major development occurred when [[Thomas Kuhn]] presented his groundbreaking analysis of scientific change in [[Kuhn (1962a)|''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] According to Kuhn, periods of 'normal science' are interrupted by 'scientific revolutions' that involve paradigm shifts. In a paradigm shift involves a fundamental change in world view for the relevant scientific communities. In his conception of theory change, the old and new theories are incommensurable.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] While Kuhn's ideas stirred much controversy, they were generally recognized as highly important.<br />
<br />
In his [[Lakatos (1978a)|''Methodology of Scientific Research Programs'']], [[Imre Lakatos]] advocated a less cataclysmic view of scientific change. In a refinement of Popper's views, he believed that theories are not necessarily falsified by failed predictions. Rather, a theory's fate depends on its centrality in an overarching research program. The more central a theory is to its research program, the more effort will be extended towards saving it by modifying the research program's auxiliary hypotheses. [[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]]<br />
<br />
[[Paul Feyerabend]] argued in [[Feyerabend (1975a)|''Against Method'']] that the methods of theory acceptance change over time in science, and that these changes are largely arbitrary. [[Dudley Shapere]] agreed that scientific methods change over time. In [[Shapere (1980)| ''The Character of Scientific Change'']], Shapere argued that the scientific methods used at the time are affected by the beliefs that the scientific community holds.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]][[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]<br />
<br />
[[Larry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], Laudan argues that the methods that scientific theories are accepted depend on the epistemic values that scientists hold. He recounted how knowledge of experimenter's bias and the placebo effect led to the development of the double blind method in drug testing. Laudan's ideas are important precursors to Scientonomy.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]<br />
<br />
In contrast, the strong program of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain science as a sociological phenomenon and sometimes stress the role played by non-empirical social values in scientific change.<br />
|History=The original formulation of the second law was proposed by [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] However, subsequent [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar]] discussions revealed the law's two major flaws. First, it didn't clearly indicate what happened to a theory when a certain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Specifically, it didn't link theory assessment outcomes to the theory's acceptance or unacceptance. Secondly, the law sounded like a tautology which is not what a good law should sound like.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] <br />
<br />
Consequently, in 2017, [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation]] of the law was suggested by [[Paul Patton|Patton]], [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard]], and Barseghyan, which [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted]] towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated second law also clearly indicated the possibility of [[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome]] of theory assessment, as opposed to sneaking the idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the phenomenon of mosaic split.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Theory Rejection<br />
|Sorting Order=200<br />
|Page Status=Editor Approved<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
|Order=1<br />
}}<br />
{{YouTube Video<br />
|VideoID=mWciydFqP_E<br />
|VideoStartAt=1443<br />
|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik<br />
|VideoEmbedSection=History<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=Yes<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Mechanism_of_Method_Employment&diff=19771Mechanism of Method Employment2024-02-14T11:22:24Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=Method Employment<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Dynamics<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=How do [[Method|methods]] become [[Norm Employment|employed]] by an epistemic agent?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=When the classical philosophy of science finally came to terms with the fact that [[Method|methods]] of theory assessment do in fact change through time, the question became ''how'' exactly they change. Since circa 1980, explaining the process of transitions from one employed method to the next has been one of the most challenging tasks for any theory of scientific change. A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of scientific change.<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Prehistory=A number of philosophers of science addressed the question of method employment before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. <br />
<br />
[[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'']] as part of his conception of paradigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] <br />
<br />
[[Dudley Shapere]] greatly developed the idea of beliefs affecting methods of theory evaluation in his [[Shapere (1980)|''The Character of Scientific Change'']], where he argued that the criteria scientists employ in theory assessment are not transcendent to science but are an integral part of it.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]<br />
<br />
Similarly, in his [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], [[Larry Laudan]] argued that the discovery of previously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-39]]<br />
<br />
The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[Ernan McMullin]]. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]] <br />
<br />
There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]]). <br />
<br />
[[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]]<br />
<br />
[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]<br />
|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2016 it was [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] as formulated by [[Hakob Barseghyan]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]]<br />
<br />
In this formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|resolved]] by [[Zoe Sebastien]] in 2016. In her [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|reformulation of the law]], Sebastien made explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet ''compatible'' with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]].<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment<br />
|Sorting Order=300<br />
|Page Status=Editor Approved<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
|Order=1<br />
|Related Theories=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Ontology_of_Scientific_Change&diff=19770Ontology of Scientific Change2024-02-13T11:25:14Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Topic<br />
|Subject=<br />
|Topic Type=Descriptive<br />
|Subfield=Ontology<br />
|Inherited From=<br />
|Heritable=No<br />
|Question Text Formula=<br />
|Question Title Formula=<br />
|Question=What is the '''ontology''' of scientific change? What are the fundamental ''entities'', ''processes'', and ''relations'' of scientific change?<br />
|Question Title=<br />
|Predicate=<br />
|Object Type=Text<br />
|Object Value True=<br />
|Object Value False=<br />
|Object Class=<br />
|Object Enum Values=<br />
|Object Regexp=<br />
|Single Answer Text Formula=<br />
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=<br />
|Answer Title Formula=<br />
|Description=In the process of [[Mechanism of Scientific Change|scientific change]], we are dealing with different epistemic ''agents'', taking different epistemic ''stances'' towards different epistemic ''elements''. For instance, we can say that the Paris community of 1720 [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] [[René Descartes|Cartesian natural philosophy]]. In this example, Paris community is the epistemic ''agent'', acceptance is their epistemic ''stance'', and Cartesian natural philosophy is the epistemic element. There are a number of important ontological questions that arise here: <br />
* What types of [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agents]] can there be? I.e. can epistemic agents be communal, individual and/or artificial (instruments, AI)?<br />
* What types of [[Epistemic Element|epistemic elements]] can there be in the process of scientific change? I.e. are there theories, method, values, research programmes, paradigms, etc.?<br />
* What are the different [[Epistemic Stance|epistemic stances]] that an agent can take towards an element? I.e. do these include acceptance, use, pursuit, employment, commitment, neglect, rejection, etc.? <br />
<br />
Addressing these questions is the main task of the ontology of scientific change.<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Prehistory=Historically, theories of scientific change differed not only in their explanations of how science changes through time, but also in their views on what exactly underwent change in science. Thus, a range of different ontologies of scientific change have been suggested over the years. <br />
<br />
In the early twentieth century, logical positivists formulated an ontology of scientific change. While they individually held varying views, we can summarize their ontology by generalizing from the overlap between authors. The positivists generally supposed that there was a single scientific [[Method|method]] that did not change through history or across disciplines so that the only epistemic elements capable of change in their ontology were [[Theory|scientific theories]].[[CiteRef::Schlick (1931)|pp.145-162]] A similar ontology was championed by many non-positivist authors, including [[Karl Popper]].[[CiteRef::Popper (1963)|pp. 62-63]]<br />
<br />
Despite its inherent vagueness, Kuhn’s [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] can be interpreted as suggesting a number of new ontological elements, including ''methods'', ''values'', ''questions'', ''standards'', and ''problems''. It is not quite clear whether these are all meant to be independent epistemic elements in their own right. Kuhn also famously used a whole range of words denoting epistemic stances, such as ''embraced'', ''universally received'', ''acknowledged'', and ''committed'' among many others.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1970c)|pp. 10-13]] It remains to be seen whether he meant them as synonyms, or whether he ascribed different meanings to at least some of them.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 30]] <br />
<br />
Imre Lakatos generated a holistic account of scientific change slightly regressive to previous ontologies. Lakatos kept Kuhn’s view of the fluidity of paradigms within scientific communities however, with two small modifications. Firstly, Lakatos saw paradigms as research programmes, of which many simultaneously existed, and secondly Lakatos believed they followed a more rational model of change, i.e. modifications were judged as regressive or progressive based on certain conditions.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1970)|pp. 31-34]] With regards to regression, Paul Feyerabend criticized Lakatos for once again suggesting that theories can only be pursued. The whole system Lakatos built was a high functioning competition between research programmes.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1970a)]] As such, per Lakatos, theories could never really be accepted, and thus they carried the potential to threaten science with a potentially infinite number of theories all of which are rational to pursue.<br />
<br />
Finally, Larry Laudan paints the closest picture to the ontology scientonomy posits today. Laudan recognized values, theories, and methodologies as epistemic elements with relations to scientists as epistemic agents. Theories could be accepted under his view and methodologies could be employed. Each epistemic element under Laudan’s reticulated model could be modified. Laudan did not recognize the potential of theories to be used but not accepted but he did recognize pursued and accepted theories in contrast to Lakatos and the logical positivists.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]]<br />
|History=In [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]]'s [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']], the question of the ontology of scientific change is discussed without being explicitly formulated. While the question has been accepted and discussed at length by [[Community:Scientonomy|the scientonomy community]] ever since its inception, it wasn't until the early 2017 when the question was openly formulated and documented. <br />
<br />
Barseghyan's original ontology included:<br />
* [[Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)|Theories]] and [[Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)|methods]] as the only two types of [[Epistemic Elements|epistemic elements]] that undergo scientific change;[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 3-11]]<br />
* Three [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances towards theories]]: ''acceptance'', ''use'', and ''pursuit'',[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 30-42]] as well as one [[Epistemic Stances Towards Methods|epistemic stance towards methods]], ''employment'';[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 52-62]] <br />
* Community as the sole [[Subtypes of Epistemic Agent|type of epistemic agent]] capable of taking these stances towards theories and methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 43-52]] <br />
<br />
Only [[Descriptive Theory|descriptive theories]] were included in Barseghyan's original ontology, while the status of [[Normative Theory|normative theories]] was left indeterminate due to the [[The Paradox of Normative Propositions|the paradox of normative propositions]]. Once the paradox of normative propositions was [[Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016)|resolved]], the original ontology was extended by [[Zoe Sebastien|Sebastien]] to also include [[Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016)|normative theories]].[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]]<br />
<br />
In 2018, [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]] suggested that [[Question|questions]] are to be accepted as a separate [[Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)|type of epistemic element]]; the suggestion became accepted later that year and the ontology was modified to include theories, methods, and questions.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]]<br />
<br />
The ontology was further modified by Barseghyan in 2018. In his [[Barseghyan (2018)|redrafted ontology]], he suggested that methods are a subtype of normative theory. He also suggested including [[Definition|definitions]] as a subtype of theory.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2018)]] As a result of the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|that modification]], theories and questions became the two basic subtypes of epistemic elements, with definitions, normative, and descriptive theories being subtypes of [[Theory|theory]].<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Parent Topic=<br />
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Scientific Change<br />
|Sorting Order=50<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=The whole prehistory needs rewriting. It's very poor at the moment.<br />
}}<br />
{{YouTube Video<br />
|VideoID=1nmOYzimL2M<br />
|VideoStartAt=97<br />
|VideoDescription=Paul Patton's overview of the scientonomic ontology<br />
|VideoEmbedSection=Description<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=The question was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2017. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy_(Barseghyan-2015)&diff=19769Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)2024-02-11T18:14:14Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Theory<br />
|Topic=Scientonomy<br />
|Theory Type=Definition<br />
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,<br />
|Formulated Year=2015<br />
|Formulation Text=A descriptive discipline that attempts to uncover the actual ''general'' mechanism of scientific change.<br />
|Formulation File=<br />
|Description='''Scientonomy''' is defined as an academic discipline that aims to describe and explain the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]]. While still very much in the process of inception, it is conceived to have two major branches - ''theoretical scientonomy'' and ''observational scientonomy''. Theoretical scientonomy attempts to shed light on the ontology and dynamics of the process of scientific change. Observational scientonomy attempts to trace and explain historical and contemporary instances of scientific change. <br />
<br />
===The Scope of Scientonomy===<br />
====The field of scientonomy====<br />
The term scientonomy refers to the newly emerging ''science of science''. If science is considered the systematic study of the natural universe, then the science of science is the systematic study of the social and cognitive processes involving knowledge production. Scientonomy approaches this study in a distinctive way. It is generally accepted nowadays that the body of theories accepted by epistemic agents - individual scientists or epistemic communities - and the methods employed by these agents to evaluate them ''change over time''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 217-225]] As the empirical scientific study of this process of scientific change, scientonomy aims at providing a new approach to developing a naturalistic account of how individuals and communities acquire knowledge. It differs from related fields of inquiry, such as history of science or the sociology of scientific knowledge, in that it maintains that the process of scientific change, despite its varied guises, exhibits certain general patterns. It attempts to study and document those patterns by giving them precise formulations. As in any other field of empirical science, the findings of scientonomy are inevitably fallible and are open to modification in the light of new evidence. <br />
<br />
The basis for this newly emerging field is Barseghyan's [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]] as propounded in his 2015 book, ''The Laws of Scientific Change''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] It builds on the ideas of Kuhn, Lakatos, Laudan, and others, all of which can be considered precursors of scientonomy. The field of scientonomy, given its distinctive concern for both general theory and the explanation of historical particulars is envisioned as having two branches. First, a theoretical branch attempts to uncover the ontology and the general mechanism of scientific change. Secondly, an observational branch attempts to trace and explain individual changes in the mosaics of various epistemic agents.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 72-80]]<br />
<br />
====Theoretical scientonomy====<br />
Though highly relevant to the traditional field of philosophy of science, theoretical scientonomy differs from it in that, as a descriptive scientific field, it does not include the normative question of how science ''should'' be conducted so as to produce reliable knowledge. In the past, when a unitary and fixed scientific method was believed to exist, the descriptive question of how the process of scientific change actually works was often conflated with the normative question of how it should work if reliable knowledge is to be produced. Scientonomy seeks a clear distinction between the two, and claims only the former as its subject matter.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 12-20]] This restriction is motivated by the same concerns as Bloor's symmetry postulate in the sociology of scientific knowledge.[[CiteRef::Golinski (1998)]] Scientonomy's descriptive account, however, does include the descriptive study of normative propositions espoused by scientific practitioners such as those contained in their openly accepted norms such as scientific methods or ethical imperatives.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] Theoretical scientonomy concerns itself specifically with two major tasks: <br />
<br />
# the formulation of a [[Ontology of Scientific Change|standard ontology]] of epistemic entities and relations involved in the process of scientific change; and <br />
# the unearthing of the [[Mechanism of Scientific Change|general patterns]] that underlie the process of scientific change. <br />
<br />
The search for fixed general laws obviates the charge of incoherent relativism sometimes leveled at the sociology of scientific knowledge.[[CiteRef::Siegel (2011)]] By seeking such laws, scientonomy hopes to illuminate questions such as the nature of scientific rationality, and the naturalistic epistemological question of how knowledge has been acquired.<br />
<br />
====Observational scientonomy====<br />
Observational scientonomy is seen as differing from the current history of science discipline in significant ways. History of science currently lacks a guiding theory; specifically, the lack of a standardized ontology often results in incommensurable historical narratives. It also often focuses on the level of individual scientists, their work, and their social context, rather than on epistemic communities. By contrast, scientonomy aims at theory-driven investigations of both individual and communal epistemic agents. It seeks to confront its current theory of scientific change with evidence that may force its alteration, refinement, or replacement, and to apply it to an expanding range of particular cases, thereby enhancing our general understanding of the processes of scientific change.<br />
<br />
===Scientonomy vs. Particularism===<br />
====Scientonomy and the lack of a universal scientific method====<br />
The approach of scientonomy contrasts with that of the particularism favored by some historians, social scientists, and philosophers. Particularism holds that the process of scientific change does not possess the sort of regularities that would render it amenable to any general theory. Its proponents typically make the tacit assumption that in order for a general mechanism of scientific change to exist, there must be a universal and unchanging method of science.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. xi-xvi, 81-97]] Historical evidence now clearly indicates that the methods used by scientists to assess new theories have altered radically over time and between communities. For example, the Aristotelian-medieval method held that a scientific theory should be a set of axioms from which other propositions may be deduced. The axioms should be intuitive in the sense that any person with sufficient experience with the subject should be able to appreciate them.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 143-144]] Modern physicists would instead maintain that a theory must make novel predictions that are confirmed by observation and experiment.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 145]] Scientonomy accepts the evidence that scientific methods have changed over time and differ between communities, but rejects the implication that this renders a theory of scientific change impossible. Instead, it supposes that changes in both theory and method obey a certain set of laws. It is these laws and not the methods of science, that scientonomy takes to be fixed.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 82-83]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 33-41]]<br />
<br />
====Individual and communal====<br />
Individual scientists differ one from another in their goals, desires, and criteria for theory appraisal. This too might seem to be grounds for rejecting the possibility of a general theory of scientific change. But the decisions to accept new theories, or to employ new methods, are made collectively by scientific communities rather than by individuals acting alone. [[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)]] Such communities have emergent properties and behaviors that cannot be understood solely in terms of the properties which their members possess separately. Scientonomy supposes that the general regularities it seeks are to be found at the level of whole scientific communities, rather than with the unruly particulars of the work of individual scientists. It thus focuses its investigations at that level.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 43-52]]<br />
<br />
====The apparent lack of general features in science====<br />
The particularist claim that science appears, to superficial observation at least, to possess no general features that have remained fixed through history is not grounds for dismissing the possibility of a theory of scientific change. Theories often reveal that unexpected regularities underlie seemingly disparate phenomena. On the face of it, a point of light revolving in the heavens and a falling apple seem to have nothing whatsoever in common. Newton’s theory of Universal Gravitation asserted, however, that both are movements under the influence of a gravitational force. The theory was highly successful in accounting for both falling bodies and the movements of the planets using a small set of simple general principles. The similarities between the two classes of phenomena only became evident through the formulation of the theory. Success in theory formulation often depends on the ability to identify such unexpected connections.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 86]]<br />
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)<br />
|Prehistory=<br />
|History=<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=The whole thing needs to be edited with a simple idea in mind: we are still very much a project of science of science, rather than a full-fledged science of science. HB I went over the article and made some minor changes in wording to stress the preliminary nature of scientonomy. I also added a reference. I also added a reference. I am leaving it as 'needs editing' because a prehistory still needs to be added. PP<br />
}}<br />
{{YouTube Video<br />
|VideoID=71owGRMclu8<br />
|VideoStartAt=<br />
|VideoDescription=Presentation of scientonomy by Hakob Barseghyan<br />
|VideoEmbedSection=Description<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Scientonomy&diff=19768Scientonomy2024-02-11T08:19:45Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Definitional Topic<br />
|Singular Capitalized=Scientonomy<br />
|Plural Capitalized=Scientonomy<br />
|Singular Lowercase=scientonomy<br />
|Plural Lowercase=scientonomy<br />
|Indefinite Article=none<br />
|Question=What is '''scientonomy'''? How should it be defined?<br />
|Description=As any empirical field of inquiry, scientonomy requires a proper definition of what it is and what it attempts to accomplish as a discipline. How is the field of scientonomy distinct from other fields attempting to shed light on science and human rationality, such as ''the philosophy of science'', ''the history of science'', ''the sociology of science'', and ''cognitive science''?<br />
|Authors List=Gregory Rupik, Hakob Barseghyan, Nicholas Overgaard, Paul Patton<br />
|Formulated Year=2016<br />
|Prehistory=To our knowledge, the usage of the term ''scientonomy'' as denoting a science of science [http://www.scottbot.net/HIAL/index.html@p=47.html was first advocated] by historian of science [http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/february/digital-humanities-specialist.html Scott Weingart], who is, at the time of this writing, a digital humanities specialist at Carnegie Mellon University. The term has also previously been coined as part of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-0n2yoSQsA a parody of the Church of Scientology], with a very different intent and definition. We are aware of no other previous uses of the term ''scientonomy''. Although the name had not yet been adopted, the characteristics of this new field are clearly outlined in the first section of ''The Laws of Scientific Change'', [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 3-123]] which deals with metatheoretical issues. These include the scope, possibility, and assessment of any theory of scientific change.<br />
<br />
Scientonomy seeks to join a number of other disciplines that have dealt with the processes of scientific knowledge creation and change from a variety of perspectives. <br />
<br />
=== Philosophy of Science ===<br />
Philosophy of science deals with a variety of epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical questions arising from scientific inquiry.[[CiteRef::Kitcher (2016)]] These include both the normative question of how one arrives at reliable scientific knowledge and the descriptive question of how scientists have done so. Philosophical works on the question of how one acquires scientific knowledge date at least to the works of [[Aristotle]] (384-322 BCE). <br />
<br />
As a distinct modern academic discipline, philosophy of science had its origin with the Vienna Circle in the early twentieth century.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]][[CiteRef::Kitcher (2016)]] The Vienna Circle was a group of European philosophers and scientists who met at the University of Vienna during academic terms from 1924 to 1936. It was organized by philosopher and physicist Moritz Schlick, and included the philosopher and logician Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher and sociologist Otto Neurath, and many others.[[CiteRef::Uebel (2016)]] Several members were involved in the founding of The Philosophy of Science Association in 1933. The association’s journal, ‘Philosophy of Science’ published its first issue in January 1934.[[CiteRef::Douglas (2016)]] The Vienna Circle sought to reconstruct empiricism based on new developments in mathematics, logic, and physics; especially [[Albert Einstein|Albert Einstein’s]] theory of relativity. It became the birthplace of logical empiricism.[[CiteRef::Creath (2011)]][[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]] The members of the circle saw themselves as champions of enlightenment, reason, and democracy in a time of metaphysical philosophy, mysticism, romanticism, and nationalism that preceded the rise of Adolf Hitler to power in Germany. They saw scientific rationality as a potent force for progressive social change.[[CiteRef::Longino (2015)]][[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]]<br />
<br />
Logical empiricism was a loosely unified movement rather than a specific body of ideas, but a common thread of thought can nonetheless be identified. The circle sought to reject all metaphysical claims of an underlying 'hidden world' in favor of knowledge grounded in experience, and relationships specified by powerful new tools of formal logic. As Schlick put it, “what every scientist seeks, and seeks alone, are…the rules which govern the connection of experiences, and by which alone they can be predicted”.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)|p. 30]] They made a distinction between two sorts of statements. The first were analytic statements that are necessarily true by convention and empty of factual content. All statements of the formal sciences; mathematics, and logic, are of this sort. The second were synthetic statements whose truth must be verifiable in experience, or from which verifiable statements could be deduced. All other statements, such as those of theology, were pseudo-statements devoid of meaning. They maintained that the diverse scientific disciplines could by unified by a common vocabulary.[[CiteRef::Cat (2014)]][[CiteRef::Hanfling (2004)]] The logical empiricists believed it was possible to distinguish a context of discovery, having the do with the actual historical and psychological processes by which scientific ideas come about, and a context of justification, having to do with the logical structure of scientific claims, and how they can properly be defended and justified. They saw the interests of philosophers of science lying in the latter, ahistorical domain.[[CiteRef::Creath (2011)]][[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]] <br />
<br />
The interests and goals of philosophers of science changed radically in the second half of the twentieth century because of a variety of serious problems with the bold project of logical empiricism. The proliferation of successful scientific theories involving unobservable entities like subatomic particles, molecules, and genes made the logical positivists rejection of the metaphysical notion that a hidden world underlies our experience increasingly untenable. Subsequent to the publication of [[Thomas Kuhn]]’s [[Kuhn (1962a)|''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] in 1962, it became evident that the logic of science could not be understood independently of its history.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]]<br />
<br />
=== History of Science ===<br />
The field of history of science attempts to provide a descriptive account of how science has developed over time. Historical works about science have been written since ancient times.[[CiteRef::Zhmud (2006)]] In modern times, the history of science was established as a distinct academic discipline in the early twentieth century with the founding of the History of Science Society in 1924. The society is the oldest and largest devoted to the discipline.[[CiteRef:: History of Science Society (2016)]] It was founded by [[George Sarton]], who also founded the field’s first journal, Isis. Sarton, trained as a chemist and mathematician, authored a three volume four thousand page history of science that covered every civilization from antiquity to the fourteenth century. Sarton defined science as the “totality of positive knowledge”, and maintained that “the history of science is the only history which can illustrate the progress of mankind. In fact, ‘progress’ has no definite and unquestionable meaning in other fields than the field of science”.[[CiteRef::Garfield (1985)]] Sarton’s ultimate goal was a philosophy of science that bridged the gap between the sciences and the humanities.<br />
<br />
The idea that scientific development involved the continuous accumulation of positive knowledge was challenged by physicist and historian of science [[Thomas Kuhn]] in 1962 in his ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions''.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] Inspired by his studies of the Copernican Revolution, and drawing primarily on examples from the physical sciences, Kuhn argued that scientific development involved revolutionary discontinuities. He spoke of scientific paradigms, which are the reigning scientific conceptual frameworks of non-revolutionary periods. Paradigms are constellations of theoretical beliefs, values, methods, and techniques shared by a scientific discipline. Normal, non-revolutionary science consists in solving problems and explaining new phenomena using the tools provided by the paradigm. A scientific revolution occurs when one paradigm is replaced by another. One groundbreaking aspect of Kuhn's work is that it greatly expanded the scope of what historians generally recognized as science. He argued that the Aristotelian framework that preceded modern science was recognizable as a reasonable scientific framework in terms of its times. Many philosophers of science, steeped in logical empiricism, found Kuhn's notion of the incommensurability of paradigms troubling. It seemed to call into question the rationality of theory choice. On the other hand, Kuhn's work tapped pre-existing philosophical interest in a more historicist and naturalistic view of scientific rationality.[[CiteRef::Golinski (2012)]] Post-Kuhnian debates led to the abandonment of the notion of a distinct context of discovery and context of justification. Social scientists saw it as grounds for positing influence by social and political factors external to science on its content. Particularist historical critics questioned the general applicability of Kuhn's ideas. Kuhn's large scale vision had limited influence on historians, who were generally moving towards more small-scale projects.[[CiteRef::Golinski (2012)]][[CiteRef::Bird (2011)]]<br />
<br />
Early work in the history of science usually maintained an internalist focus on science itself, while post-Kuhnian work often seeks to place such work into context within the larger society. Historians of science are interested in the work of particular scientific practitioners, in the instruments and techniques they used to study nature, the ways they represented and communicated their work to others, the institutional arrangements they made to promote their research, and their ideas and arguments, as recorded in surviving manuscripts and papers.[[CiteRef::Gooding (1985)]] Historians of science have lacked a generally accepted guiding theoretical interpretive framework.<br />
<br />
=== History and Philosophy of Science ===<br />
As a joint discipline, history and philosophy of science seeks to create a historicised philosophy of science. The descriptive task of understanding scientific development and the normative task of prescribing reliable methods of seeking knowledge are often not distinguished. Academic programs in the history and philosophy of science were established at both Princeton University and Indiana University in 1960.[[CiteRef::Mauskopf and Schmaltz (2012)]] The Indiana department was founded by [[Norwood Hanson|Norwood Russell Hanson]].[[CiteRef::Hickney (2016)]] Hanson’s book ‘Patterns of Discovery’, published in 1958 [[CiteRef::Hanson (1958)]], stressed the theory-ladenness of observation and the historical nature of scientific rationality in an exploration of modern particle physics.[[CiteRef::Lund (2010)]] As a work in the history of science, Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ attracted considerable attention from philosophers, in part because some philosophers besides Hanson, including [[Stephen Toulmin]], had been working on rather similar ideas.[[CiteRef::Mauskopf and Schmaltz (2012)]] History and philosophy of science programs proliferated in the 1960's and 1970's, fueled in part, by interest in Kuhn's work and in part by the Cold War willingness of western governments to fund projects that promoted interest in science.[[CiteRef::Miller (2012)]] Historicist views of scientific epistemology and rationality have subsequently been dominant. [[Imre Lakatos]] presented scientific development in terms of research programs that progressed when they made successful novel predictions, and degenerated when they failed to do so, and when core assumptions were adjusted in an arbitrary manner to avoid falsification.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]][[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]] Empirical historical evidence led philosophers to reject the notion of a unitary scientific method that had remained fixed through history.[[CiteRef::Grobler (1990)]] Laudan’s reticulated model of scientific rationality posited during assessment of a theory, other theories, methods, and values all interact.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] Philosopher [[Ronald Giere]] dubbed the joining of history and philosophy of science a "marriage of convenience".[[CiteRef::Giere (2012)]] Many question whether the two have formed a genuinely unified discipline because of the diverse interests and political commitments of those who study the development of science.[[CiteRef::Golinski (1998)]]<br />
<br />
=== Sociology of Scientific Knowledge ===<br />
The field of sociology, the scientific study of human social structures, was founded by [[Robert Merton]]. In the 1940’s Merton began studying the sociology of scientific communities. However, his studies had little contact with epistemology or philosophy of science, except in the general sense of identifying the social conditions under which scientific inquiry is possible and fruitful. Merton assumed a view of scientific knowledge similar to that of the logical empiricists.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]] The philosophers [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], and [[Karl Popper]] stressed the social dimension of scientific epistemology, but their view did not become the dominant one until after the publication of Kuhn’s ''Structure of Scientific Revolutions''.[[CiteRef::Longino (2015)]]<br />
The ‘strong program’ of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) began in the 1970’s at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, under the leadership of sociologist [[Barry Barnes]] and philosopher [[David Bloor]]. Proponents of SSK view knowledge as a collective social product, and seek a naturalistic account of its production. In effect, they seek to use the methods of social science to study science itself.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]] A central principle of the ‘strong program’ is the symmetry principle, in which normative epistemological concerns are ‘screened out’ for the sake of illuminating social interactions and relationships involved in the production of knowledge. Its value is most evident when considering knowledge processes far removed from our own by time and culture, such as when understanding how western astronomy disentangled itself from astrology in seventeenth century Europe.[[CiteRef::Golinski (1998)]] Social constructivism has sometimes been criticized as an attempt to “explain away” science as nothing but social power structures.[[CiteRef::Longino (2015)]] However, recent attempts to introduce cognitive science concepts into social epistemology hold much promise of naturalizing rationality, and thereby obviating such concerns.[[CiteRef::Giere and Moffatt (2003)]][[CiteRef::Giere (2002)]]<br />
|History=The term ''scientonomy'' was adopted to denote an empirical descriptive ''science of science'' subsequent to the publication of [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]<br />
|Current View=<br />
|Related Topics=Assessment of Scientonomy, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Ontology of Scientific Change, Possibility of Scientonomy, Scientific Change, Scientific Mosaic, Scope of Scientonomy<br />
|Sorting Order=0<br />
|Page Status=Needs Editing<br />
|Editor Notes=<br />
}}<br />
{{Acceptance Record<br />
|Community=Community:Scientonomy<br />
|Accepted From Era=CE<br />
|Accepted From Year=2016<br />
|Accepted From Month=January<br />
|Accepted From Day=1<br />
|Accepted From Approximate=No<br />
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.<br />
|Still Accepted=Yes<br />
|Accepted Until Era=<br />
|Accepted Until Year=<br />
|Accepted Until Month=<br />
|Accepted Until Day=<br />
|Accepted Until Approximate=No<br />
|Rejection Indicators=<br />
}}</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Test&diff=19767Test2024-02-11T08:19:24Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{#invoke:Sandbox|hello}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicCurrentlyAcceptedInCommunitiesList|topic=Scientonomy|link=none}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicAcceptedTheoriesList<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=There is currently no accepted answer to this question.<!--<br />
-->|communitiesfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|groupbycommunity=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!--<br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- <br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|sort=Answer Type, Sorting Order<!--<br />
-->|order=asc, asc<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Community::Community:Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!--<br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|mainlabel=-<!--<br />
-->|headers=hide<!--<br />
-->|sort=Answer Type, Sorting Order<!--<br />
-->|order=asc, asc<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintCommunityTopicCurrentTheories<!--<br />
-->|community=Community:Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=No answer.<!--<br />
-->|communityfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|formulationtext=yes<!--<br />
-->|link=yes<!--<br />
-->|linktheory=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{#widget:Facebook Comments<br />
|appID=448924768892859<br />
|url={{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}}}<br />
|num=100<br />
|width=650<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- BANNER ACROSS TOP OF PAGE --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner"><br />
<!-- WELCOME TO the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner-title">'''Welcome to the Encyclopedia of [[Scientonomy]]'''</div><br />
<div>the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at</div><br />
<div><br />
* outlining [[Community:Scientonomy#Current Mosaic|'''the current state''']] of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;<br />
* tracing [[Community:Scientonomy#Suggested Modifications|'''all suggested modifications''']] to our communal knowledge;<br />
* documenting [[Community:Scientonomy#Open Questions|'''the open questions''']] concerning the process of scientific change.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mp-page-count">There are currently [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFPAGES}}]] pages in this encyclopedia.</div><br />
<br />
{| id="mp-upper"<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Left" |<br />
{| id="mp-left" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Featured Article</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintFeaturedArticle}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">In the news</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintInTheNews}}<br />
|}<br />
| style="border: 1px solid transparent;" |<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Right" |<br />
{| id="mp-right" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Suggested Modifications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[:Category:Modification|all]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentModifications}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Publications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[Journal of Scientonomy|check out the journal]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentPublications}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- TODAY'S FEATURED LIST --><!-- CONDITIONAL SHOW --><br />
<table id="mp-middle" style="width:100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #f2cedd; background-color:#fff5fa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"><br />
<table id="mp-center" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background-color:#fff5fa; color:#000;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="padding:2px;"><h2 id="mp-tfl-h2" style="margin:3px; background-color:#f2cedd; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #bfa3af; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em">From today's featured list</h2></td><br />
</tr><tr><br />
<td style="color:#000;"><div id="mp-tfl" style="padding:2px 5px;">Some text</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
__NOREFERENCELIST__</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Test&diff=19766Test2024-02-11T08:18:59Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{#invoke:Sandbox|hello}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicCurrentlyAcceptedInCommunitiesList|topic=Scientonomy|link=none}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicAcceptedTheoriesList<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=There is currently no accepted answer to this question.<!--<br />
-->|communitiesfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|groupbycommunity=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!--<br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- <br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Community::Community:Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!--<br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|mainlabel=-<!--<br />
-->|headers=hide<!--<br />
-->|sort=Answer Type, Sorting Order<!--<br />
-->|order=asc, asc<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintCommunityTopicCurrentTheories<!--<br />
-->|community=Community:Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=No answer.<!--<br />
-->|communityfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|formulationtext=yes<!--<br />
-->|link=yes<!--<br />
-->|linktheory=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{#widget:Facebook Comments<br />
|appID=448924768892859<br />
|url={{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}}}<br />
|num=100<br />
|width=650<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- BANNER ACROSS TOP OF PAGE --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner"><br />
<!-- WELCOME TO the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner-title">'''Welcome to the Encyclopedia of [[Scientonomy]]'''</div><br />
<div>the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at</div><br />
<div><br />
* outlining [[Community:Scientonomy#Current Mosaic|'''the current state''']] of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;<br />
* tracing [[Community:Scientonomy#Suggested Modifications|'''all suggested modifications''']] to our communal knowledge;<br />
* documenting [[Community:Scientonomy#Open Questions|'''the open questions''']] concerning the process of scientific change.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mp-page-count">There are currently [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFPAGES}}]] pages in this encyclopedia.</div><br />
<br />
{| id="mp-upper"<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Left" |<br />
{| id="mp-left" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Featured Article</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintFeaturedArticle}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">In the news</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintInTheNews}}<br />
|}<br />
| style="border: 1px solid transparent;" |<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Right" |<br />
{| id="mp-right" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Suggested Modifications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[:Category:Modification|all]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentModifications}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Publications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[Journal of Scientonomy|check out the journal]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentPublications}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- TODAY'S FEATURED LIST --><!-- CONDITIONAL SHOW --><br />
<table id="mp-middle" style="width:100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #f2cedd; background-color:#fff5fa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"><br />
<table id="mp-center" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background-color:#fff5fa; color:#000;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="padding:2px;"><h2 id="mp-tfl-h2" style="margin:3px; background-color:#f2cedd; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #bfa3af; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em">From today's featured list</h2></td><br />
</tr><tr><br />
<td style="color:#000;"><div id="mp-tfl" style="padding:2px 5px;">Some text</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
__NOREFERENCELIST__</div>Hakob Barseghyanhttps://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Test&diff=19765Test2024-02-11T08:18:40Z<p>Hakob Barseghyan: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{#invoke:Sandbox|hello}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicCurrentlyAcceptedInCommunitiesList|topic=Scientonomy|link=none}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintTopicAcceptedTheoriesList<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=There is currently no accepted answer to this question.<!--<br />
-->|communitiesfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|groupbycommunity=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!--<br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{#ask:<!--<br />
-->[[SubObjectCategory::Current Answer]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Community::Community:Scientonomy]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Answer Type::Complete||Inherited||Partial]]<!-- <br />
-->[[Topic::Scientonomy]]<!--<br />
-->|?Theory<!--<br />
-->|mainlabel=-<!--<br />
-->|headers=hide<!--<br />
-->|sort=Answer Type, Sorting Order<!--<br />
-->|order=asc, asc<!--<br />
-->|format=table<!--<br />
-->|link=none<!--<br />
-->|limit=10000<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
{{PrintCommunityTopicCurrentTheories<!--<br />
-->|community=Community:Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|topic=Scientonomy<!--<br />
-->|default=No answer.<!--<br />
-->|communityfirst=yes<!--<br />
-->|formulationtext=yes<!--<br />
-->|link=yes<!--<br />
-->|linktheory=yes<!--<br />
-->}}<br />
<br />
<br />
{{#widget:Facebook Comments<br />
|appID=448924768892859<br />
|url={{fullurl:{{PAGENAME}}}}<br />
|num=100<br />
|width=650<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- BANNER ACROSS TOP OF PAGE --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner"><br />
<!-- WELCOME TO the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy --><br />
<div id="mp-topbanner-title">'''Welcome to the Encyclopedia of [[Scientonomy]]'''</div><br />
<div>the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at</div><br />
<div><br />
* outlining [[Community:Scientonomy#Current Mosaic|'''the current state''']] of our communal knowledge of the mechanism of scientific change;<br />
* tracing [[Community:Scientonomy#Suggested Modifications|'''all suggested modifications''']] to our communal knowledge;<br />
* documenting [[Community:Scientonomy#Open Questions|'''the open questions''']] concerning the process of scientific change.<br />
</div><br />
</div><br />
<br />
<div id="mp-page-count">There are currently [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFPAGES}}]] pages in this encyclopedia.</div><br />
<br />
{| id="mp-upper"<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Left" |<br />
{| id="mp-left" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Featured Article</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintFeaturedArticle}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">In the news</div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintInTheNews}}<br />
|}<br />
| style="border: 1px solid transparent;" |<br />
| class="MainPageBG-Right" |<br />
{| id="mp-right" <br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Suggested Modifications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[:Category:Modification|all]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentModifications}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div class="mp-h2">Recent Publications <span style="font-size:80%; font-weight:normal;">([[Journal of Scientonomy|check out the journal]])</span></div><br />
|-<br />
| {{PrintRecentPublications}}<br />
|}<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- TODAY'S FEATURED LIST --><!-- CONDITIONAL SHOW --><br />
<table id="mp-middle" style="width:100%; margin:4px 0 0 0; background:none; border-spacing: 0px;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td class="MainPageBG" style="width:100%; border:1px solid #f2cedd; background-color:#fff5fa; vertical-align:top; color:#000;"><br />
<table id="mp-center" style="width:100%; vertical-align:top; background-color:#fff5fa; color:#000;"><br />
<tr><br />
<td style="padding:2px;"><h2 id="mp-tfl-h2" style="margin:3px; background-color:#f2cedd; font-family:inherit; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; border:1px solid #bfa3af; text-align:left; color:#000; padding:0.2em 0.4em">From today's featured list</h2></td><br />
</tr><tr><br />
<td style="color:#000;"><div id="mp-tfl" style="padding:2px 5px;">Some text</div></td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
__NOREFERENCELIST__</div>Hakob Barseghyan