Modification:Sciento-2024-0001

Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists.

The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Sanghoon Oh on 21 February 2024.1 The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.

Preamble

This modification was one of the three introduced that superseded Oh’s original modification, given that members of the community wanted the option to vote separately on the three distinct modifications contained in the original proposed modification. 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.

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.

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.

Theories To Accept

• Element Decay Exists: There is such a thing as element decay.
• Theory Decay Exists: There is such a thing as theory decay.

Questions Answered

This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):

• Existence of Element Decay: Does element decay exist?
• Existence of Theory Decay: Does theory decay exist?

Verdict

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

Click on the Discussion tab for comments.