Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
12,011
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Singular Capitalized=
|Plural Capitalized=Scientific Mosaics
|Singular Lowercase=scientific mosaic
|Plural Lowercase=scientific mosaics
|Indefinite Article=a
|Question=What is '''scientific mosaic'''? How should it be ''defined''?
|Description=''Scientific mosaic'' is one of the key concepts in current scientonomy. Thus, its proper definition is of great importance.
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=Although almost all of the great philosophers of science of the 20th century have described the history of science in terms of a changing, systematic collection of beliefs, there has never been a real consensus in the language used to describe such a collection. [[Thomas Kuhn]] used the word ''paradigm'' to talk of integrated collections of theories, methods, and values that were replaced during episodes of revolutionary scientific change.[[CiteRef::Bird (2011)]][[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] [[Imre Lakatos]] described a set of propositions as fitting into a scientific ''research programme'';[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]] [[Larry Laudan]] used the concept of ''research tradition''.[[CiteRef::Matheson and Dallmann (2015)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] Richard DeWitt talks of ''worldviews'' to describe the beliefs held by a scientific community at any given time.[[CiteRef::DeWitt (2010)|p. 7]]
With the acceptance of [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]]'s new ontology of epistemic elements which added questions as a new [[Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)|type of epistemic element]], it became apparent that the definition of scientific mosaic should be adjusted to include questions.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]] [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018)|One such definition]] was suggested by Barseghyan in his [[Barseghyan (2018)|"Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change"]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2018)]] The new definition became [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0009|became accepted]] in 2020. As this definition does not refer to any epistemic elements explicitly, it is in principle compatible with any future ontology insofar as that ontology involves the notions of ''acceptance'' and ''employment''.
In 2022, Rawleigh suggested an updated, model-theoretic definition that replaces the explicitly set-theoretic wording “set of all epistemic elements” with a semantic “model of all accepted elements”.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2022)|p. 91]] This new definition was discussed at the [[Scientonomy Workshop 2024|2024 scientonomy workshop]] and became accepted by a two-thirds majority.|Current View=|Related Topics=Employed Method, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Theory, Method, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Employed MethodTheory, Theory Acceptance,|Sorting Order=1000
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
