Difference between revisions of "Test"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)==
 
==Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)==
 +
 +
{{#ask:<!--
 +
    -->[[SubObjectCategory::Acceptance Record]]<!--
 +
    -->|?Topic<!--
 +
    -->|?Parent Topic<!--
 +
    -->|?Community<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From Era<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From Year<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From Month<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From Day<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted From Approximate<!--
 +
    -->|?Acceptance Indicators<!--
 +
    -->|?Still Accepted<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted Until Era<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted Until Year<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted Until Month<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted Until Day<!--
 +
    -->|?Accepted Until Approximate<!--
 +
    -->|?Rejection Indicators<!--
 +
    -->|mainlabel=-<!--
 +
    -->|headers=hide<!--
 +
    -->|link=none<!--
 +
    -->|limit=10000<!--
 +
    -->}}
 +
 
{{#show: Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|?Description }}
 
{{#show: Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|?Description }}
  

Revision as of 15:22, 21 December 2022

Compatibility Criteria (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)

Acceptance CriteriaCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 20162016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Accidental GroupCommunity:Scientonomy2 February 2018CE2018February2NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Workflow - Reformulating Suggesting ModificationsScientonomic WorkflowCommunity:Scientonomy25 February 2023CE2023February25NoThe idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy4 October 2018CE2018October4NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.true
Community:Scientonomy10 March 2017CE2017March10NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoThe publication of Patton (2019) is and indication of the acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy27 January 2017CE2017January27NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe question was raised by Barseghyan in his original formulation of scientonomy pp. 99-109, although he was unable to supply a normative answer.true
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant FactsAssessment of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' p. 109-113 and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe community has accepted an answer to this question, Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant facts Barseghyan 2015, and this implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of the question itself.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe law became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoAssociations of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoAssociations of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoAssociations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Question. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoAssociations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Definition. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Delineating Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Demarcation Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Descriptive Theory. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline Acceptance. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoAssociations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoAssociations of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoAssociations of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Agent. The publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19YesAssociations of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Element. The term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Stance. The term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoAssociations of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Global Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoAssociations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Hierarchical Authority Delegation. The publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoAssociations of Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Implicit. The publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoAssociations of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Individual Epistemic Agent. This is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoAssociations of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Action Availability. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoAssociations of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Logical Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoAssociations of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method Hierarchy. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoAssociations of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Merge.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Split.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoAssociations of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Norm Employment. The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Normative Theory. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoAssociations of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question Acceptance. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoAssociations of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Scientific Mosaic. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoAssociations of Subdiscipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Subdiscipline. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Acceptance. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the term itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Pursuit.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Use.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoAssociations of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.true
Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method EmploymentMechanism of Method EmploymentCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy1 February 2017CE2017February1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoThe publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Bearers of MosaicOntology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis claim was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2018. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC.falseCE2018October8NoWith the publication of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology that coined the term epistemic agent the question of the bearers of a mosaic was superseded by the question of subtypes of epistemic agent. As a result, the answer to the former was also rejected.
Community:Scientonomy1 March 2016CE2016March1YesIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.falseCE2018October8NoFollowing the publication of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology that coined the term epistemic agent, the question was superseded by the of Subtypes of Epistemic Agent.
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the first answer to the question was accepted, the Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015), indicating that the question is itself legitimate.true
CommunityCommunity:Scientonomy2 February 2018CE2018February2NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Associations of CommunityCommunity:Scientonomy1 February 2017CE2017February1NoThe definition of the term that assumed this association was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of CommunityCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe existence of communities has been accepted since the inception of scientonomy.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
CompatibilityCommunity:Scientonomy3 June 2020CE2020June3NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Compatibility of Mosaic ElementsMechanism of CompatibilityCommunity:Scientonomy3 June 2020CE2020June3NoThe corollary became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Compatibility CriteriaCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2020October11NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.
Compatibility CriteriaCommunity:Scientonomy11 October 2020CE2020October11NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Compatibility		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 October 2021CE2021October1NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Nature of AppraisalMechanism of Theory AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Core QuestionCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Core TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 March 2018CE2018March1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
DefinitionCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of DefinitionCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology.true
Subtypes of Theory
Supertypes of Definition		Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoThe question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 20162016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy25 January 2018CE2018January25NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy10 February 2017CE2017February10NoIt was acknowledged as an open question in Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Delineating TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Demarcation CriteriaCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Community:Scientonomy3 March 2017CE2017March3NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Descriptive TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of Descriptive TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe existence of descriptive theories became accepted together with the acceptance of the rest of the original TSC.true
Subtypes of Theory
Supertypes of Descriptive Theory		Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scientific Underdeterminism theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
DisciplineCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Discipline AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Existence of DisciplineCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe existence of disciplines has been accepted since the inception of the community in 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoDisjointness of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Accidental Group. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoDisjointness of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoDisjointness of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoDisjointness of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Question. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoDisjointness of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Definition. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Delineating Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Demarcation Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Descriptive Theory. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline Acceptance. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoDisjointness of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoDisjointness of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoDisjointness of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Agent. The publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19YesDisjointness of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Element. The term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Stance. The term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Error became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Error. This is when Machado-Marques and Patton's Scientific Error and Error Handling that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoDisjointness of Explicable-Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Explicable-Implicit. The publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoDisjointness of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Global Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoDisjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Hierarchical Authority Delegation. The publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoDisjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Individual Epistemic Agent. This is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoDisjointness of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Action Availability. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoDisjointness of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Logical Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoDisjointness of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method Hierarchy. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesDisjointness of Methodology became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Methodology. That is when the first definition of the term, Methodology (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is a good indication that the question itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoDisjointness of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Merge.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Split.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoDisjointness of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Norm Employment. The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Normative Theory. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Outcome Accept became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Outcome Accept. That's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.falseCE2017November29NoDisjointness of Outcome Accept became rejected by virtue of the rejection of Outcome Accept. The term itself became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new taxonomy by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoDisjointness of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question Acceptance. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoDisjointness of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Scientific Mosaic. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoDisjointness of Subdiscipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Subdiscipline. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Acceptance. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the term itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Pursuit.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Use.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoDisjointness of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.true
Changeability of the Scientific MosaicMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Static vs. Dynamic MethodsMechanism of Method RejectionCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Employed MethodCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2017November28NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new definition by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Employed MethodCommunity:Scientonomy29 November 2017CE2017November29NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2019September1NoThis definition of the term was rejected when the usage of the term as referring to an epistemic stance was deprecated after the acceptance of the term norm employment.
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is an indication that the topic itself is legitimate.falseCE2019September1NoThe usage of the term as referring to an epistemic stance was deprecated after the acceptance of the term norm employment.
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoThis is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Epistemic AgentCommunity:Scientonomy11 October 2020CE2020October11NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of Epistemic AgentCommunity:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoThis is when the notion of epistemic agent was coined.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoThe publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.true
Existence of Epistemic CommunityCommunity:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe existence of epistemic communities became de facto accepted after the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for the Social Agents of Scientific Change where the term was coined. This is indicated by the fact that scientonomers have been customarily using the term to refer to various communal agents.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoThis is when Patton's paper explicitly stating the reason was published.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Agent
Supertypes of Epistemic Community		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoThis is when the term epistemic agent was coined and, as a result, this formulation superseded the idea that communities are bearers of a mosaic.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19YesThe question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Existence of Epistemic ElementCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe existence of epistemic elements has been tacitly accepted since the inception of scientonomy.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.true
Epistemic PresuppositionCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Existence of Epistemic PresuppositionCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Existence of Epistemic StanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory became tacitly accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe acceptance of definitions as a subtype of theory indicates that the question of epistemic stances that can be taken towards definitions became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe question became tacitly accepted together with the acceptance of the original TSC.true
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsOntology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 October 2021CE2021October1NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoWhile, in this general form, the question wasn't clearly stated in The Laws of Scientific Change, it was implicit in a more specific question of Epistemic Stances Towards Theories.true
Epistemic Stances Towards MethodsEpistemic Stances Towards Normative TheoriesCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2019September1NoThe theory became rejected as a ripple effect of the acceptance of the new ontology of epistemic stances through the respective suggested modification.
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Epistemic Stances Towards Methods - Employment (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.true
Epistemic Stances Towards Normative TheoriesEpistemic Stances Towards TheoriesCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThis theory was accepted as a ripple effect of the acceptance of the concept of norm employment through the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe question was de facto accepted as a result of the acceptance of Modification:Sciento-2017-0002.true
Epistemic Stances Towards QuestionsEpistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsCommunity:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy26 September 2018CE2018September26NoThe acceptance of questions as a distinct element of the scientonomic ontology indicates that the question of epistemic stances that can be taken towards questions became accepted.true
Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesEpistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesEpistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Epistemic Stances Towards TheoriesEpistemic Stances Towards Epistemic ElementsCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answers to this question, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015), and Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.true
ErrorCommunity:Scientonomy8 October 2021CE2021October8NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Mechanism of Error RejectionMechanism of Theory RejectionCommunity:Scientonomy8 October 2021CE2021October8NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Machado-Marques and Patton's Scientific Error and Error Handling that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoExistence of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoExistence of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoExistence of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Question. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoExistence of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Definition. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Delineating Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Demarcation Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Descriptive Theory. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline Acceptance. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoExistence of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoExistence of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoExistence of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Agent. The publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19YesExistence of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Element. The term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Stance. The term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoExistence of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Global Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoExistence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Hierarchical Authority Delegation. The publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoExistence of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Individual Epistemic Agent. This is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoExistence of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Action Availability. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoExistence of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Logical Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoThe question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoExistence of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method Hierarchy. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoExistence of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Merge.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Split.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoExistence of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Norm Employment. The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Normative Theory. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoExistence of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question Acceptance. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoExistence of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Scientific Mosaic. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoExistence of Subdiscipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Subdiscipline. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Acceptance. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the term itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Pursuit.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Use.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoExistence of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.true
Explicable-ImplicitCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
ExplicitCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Explicit		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy28 September 2022CE2022September28NoTesting the subtypestrue
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoThis is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Workflow - Goals of Peer ReviewScientonomic WorkflowCommunity:Scientonomy25 February 2023CE2023February25NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
GroupCommunity:Scientonomy2 February 2018CE2018February2NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Workflow - Handling Ripple EffectsScientonomic WorkflowCommunity:Scientonomy25 February 2023CE2023February25NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Hierarchical Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy23 October 2018CE2018October23NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Hierarchical Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy14 September 2018CE2018September14Notrue
History of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 20162016January1Notrue
Community:Scientonomy3 March 2017CE2017March3NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
ImplicitCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Implicit		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy28 September 2022CE2022September28NoTestingtrue
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy20 September 2018CE2018September20NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Indicators of Method EmploymentCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Indicators of Method Employment(Barseghyan 2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe question became accepted accepted as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Indicators of Theory AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. Barseghyan (2015)true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Indicators of Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan 2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy22 November 2018CE2018November22NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.true
Existence of Individual Epistemic AgentCommunity:Scientonomy10 January 2022CE2022January10NoThe theory became accepted as the result of the acceptance of the respective modificationtrue
Community:Scientonomy10 January 2022CE2022January10NoThis is when the idea that individuals can be epistemic agents became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Agent
Supertypes of Individual Epistemic Agent		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy10 January 2022CE2022January10NoThe theory became accepted as the result of the acceptance of the respective modificationtrue
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoThis is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.true
Individual LevelCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Community:Scientonomy25 January 2018CE2018January25NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
InexplicableCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoThe publication of Maxim Mirkin's The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy5 February 2017CE2017February5NoThat's when Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoThis is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoThis is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Logical PresuppositionCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Existence of Logical PresuppositionCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy8 March 2018CE2018March8NoIt was asked in the seminar and upon uniform agreement we accepted it as an open question.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis 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.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answers to this question, the Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and the Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy28 February 2022CE2022February28NoThis is the date of the publication of the collected volume that included Rawleigh's paper, which indicates that the question is itself came to be considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2023CE2023December28NoThis is when Pandey's paper suggesting the first direct answer to the question was published, which is an indicator that the question itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe question became accepted accepted as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered an answer to the question was published. This is a good indication that the question itself is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, The Theory of Scientific Change, which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the questions is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, The First Law for Methods (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the questions is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2023CE2023December28NoThe publication of Pandey's paper where an answer to this question is suggested is an indication that the question itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThe publication of Question Dynamics by Barseghyan and Levesley where the first law for questions was formulated is a solid indicator that the question itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, The First Law (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the questions is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 20162016January1YesThis 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.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe question became de facto accepted by the community as legitimate at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
MethodCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2019September1NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.
MethodCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoThe question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Method		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe claim was tacitly accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. It was made explicit on January 16, 2017 when Nicholas Overgaard suggested that the question of ontology of a certain field shouldn't be answered via definitions alone. See Modification_talk:Sciento-2016-0002 for details.falseCE2019September1NoThe claim became rejected with the acceptance of Modification:Sciento-2018-0006.
Supertypes of Method
Subtypes of Normative Theory		Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology.true
Mechanism of Method RejectionMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.true
MethodologyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2017February15NoThe definition became rejected when Methodology (Sebastien-2016) became accepted.
MethodologyCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
MethodologyCommunity:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2019September1NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.
Role of Methodology in Scientific ChangeMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThat is when the first definition of the term, Methodology (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is a good indication that the question itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Mosaic MergeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Mosaic SplitCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Multiple Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy23 October 2018CE2018October23NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Multiple Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe publication of the article by Loiselle titled Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Loiselle (2017)true
Mutual Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy2 February 2018CE2018February2NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Mutual Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoThe publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoThe question was missing and was added by the editors of the encyclopedia in early 2023. However, it is safe to say that it has been de facto accepted since the acceptance of its parent question in 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, the Non-Empty Mosaic theorem, which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 March 2018CE2018March1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Necessary MethodsNecessary Normative TheoriesCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates the question is itself legitimate.true
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe question was missing and was added by the editors of the encyclopedia in early 2023. However, it is safe to say that it has been de facto accepted since the acceptance of Sebastien's ontology in 2017.true
Community:Scientonomy15 November 2018CE2018November15NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Necessary ElementsCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy10 September 2016CE2016September10NoThe question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy23 October 2018CE2018October23NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Non-Hierarchical Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe publication of the article by Loiselle titled Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Norm EmploymentCommunity:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Norm Employment		Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe theory became tacitly accepted as a result of the acceptance of modification Sciento-2018-0008.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Normative TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of Normative TheoryCommunity:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Sebastien's ontology.true
Subtypes of Theory
Supertypes of Normative Theory		Community:Scientonomy15 February 2017CE2017February15NoThe claim became accepted as a result of the acceptance of Sebastien's ontology.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
One-sided Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy2 February 2018CE2018February2NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
One-sided Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoThe publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe 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.true
Outcome AcceptCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2017November29NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new definition by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Accept (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.falseCE2017November29NoThe term itself became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new taxonomy by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Outcome InconclusiveCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2017November29NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new definition by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Outcome InconclusiveCommunity:Scientonomy29 November 2017CE2017November29NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.true
Outcome Not AcceptCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2017November29NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new definition by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Not Accept (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.falseCE2017November29NoThe term itself became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the new taxonomy by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to the modification.
Outcome Not SatisfiedCommunity:Scientonomy29 November 2017CE2017November29NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy5 February 2017CE2017February5NoThat's when Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate.true
Outcome SatisfiedCommunity:Scientonomy29 November 2017CE2017November29NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy5 February 2017CE2017February5NoThat's when Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017) became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Possibility of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 February 2018CE2018February1NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Response to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself legitimate.true
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Procedural MethodCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Workflow - Publishing Modification CommentsScientonomic WorkflowCommunity:Scientonomy25 February 2023CE2023February25NoThe idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Community:Scientonomy18 January 2018CE2018January18NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Pursuit as AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis view is implicit in the accepted ontology of epistemic stances and has therefore been tacitly accepted since the inception of scientonomy. It was first explicated on January 18, 2018 in Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
QuestionCommunity:Scientonomy26 September 2018CE2018September26NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Question AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Existence of Question AcceptanceCommunity:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance
Supertypes of Question Acceptance		Community:Scientonomy1 November 2018CE2018November1NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoThis is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Associations of Theory
Associations of Question		Community:Scientonomy15 May 2019CE2019May15Notrue
Existence of QuestionCommunity:Scientonomy26 September 2018CE2018September26NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Subtypes of Epistemic Element
Supertypes of Question		Ontology of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy26 September 2018CE2018September26NoThe theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy13 August 2022CE2022August13YesThis is when Question Pursuit as an Epistemic Stance was published.true
Mechanism of Question RejectionMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe theorem became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoThis is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy23 December 2019CE2019December23NoThis is when Palider's paper presenting the first scientonomic definition of the term was published.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
The Paradox of Normative PropositionsMechanism of Method EmploymentCommunity:Scientonomy21 January 2017CE2017January21NoThe solution to the paradox became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track RecordPossibility of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific MethodPossibility of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing PermanentPossibility of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social ConstructionPossibility of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 March 2016CE2016March1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates the question is itself legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy31 March 2017CE2017March31NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1YesIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe question became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy15 March 2018CE2018March15NoIt was talked about during the seminar and agreed to be a question.true
Community:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy2015CE2015YesThe question became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy3 March 2017CE2017March3NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.true
Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
Scientific MosaicCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.falseCE2020May17NoThe definition became reject when it was replaced by Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018).
Scientific MosaicCommunity:Scientonomy17 May 2020CE2020May17NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2024February21NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification. It was replaced by Rawleigh's 2022 definition.
Scientific MosaicCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Determinism vs. Underdeterminism in Scientific ChangeMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Scientonomic WorkflowCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the implementation of the workflow by the scientonomy community began.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe publication of Shaw and Barseghyan (2019) where the question was first explicitly formulated is an indication of the question's acceptance. Yet, it is safe to say that the question had been accepted prior to that with the establishment of the scientonomic workflow in 2016.true
ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThis is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and PursuitScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 30-42 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 61-72 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 61-72 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and ScaleScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 61-72 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and AppraisalScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 21-29 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe community has accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. pp. 21-30true
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and NormativeScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 12-20 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Description(Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.pp. 12-21true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Both Explicit and Implicit (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.pp. 52-60true
Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and ImplicitScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 52-61 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. pp. 43-51true
Community:Scientonomy25 January 2018CE2018January25NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.true
Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and SocialScope of ScientonomyCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theory was introduced by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change pp. 43-51 and became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. pp. 61-72true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoThe question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThis is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question itself is legitimate.true
Singular Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy23 October 2018CE2018October23NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.falseCE2023February6NoThe definition became rejected as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.
Singular Authority DelegationCommunity:Scientonomy6 February 2023CE2023February6NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoThe publication of the article by Loiselle titled Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Social LevelCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory AcceptanceRole of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Mechanism of Mosaic SplitMechanism of Scientific ChangeCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Static vs. Dynamic MethodsMechanism of Method RejectionCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThe theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoThat is when the community accepted its first answers to this question, the Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) and Dynamic Substantive Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy8 March 2018CE2018March8NoWe talked about this during the seminar and came to the conclusion we could not immediately answer the question.true
Community:Scientonomy18 October 2018CE2018October18Notrue
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1YesIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoIt was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
SubdisciplineCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Existence of SubdisciplineCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Subtypes of Discipline
Supertypes of Subdiscipline		Community:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
SubquestionCommunity:Scientonomy21 February 2024CE2024February21NoThe definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective modification.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoThis is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology hat offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Substantive MethodCommunity:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1YesThe definition became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1Notrue
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoSubtypes of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoSubtypes of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoSubtypes of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Question. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoSubtypes of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Definition. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Delineating Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Delineating Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Demarcation Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Descriptive Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Descriptive Theory. The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline Acceptance. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoSubtypes of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Discipline. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoSubtypes of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy8 October 2018CE2018October8NoSubtypes of Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Agent. The publication of Barseghyan (2018) is an indication of the acceptance of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19YesSubtypes of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Element. The term epistemic element has been de facto accepted since the inception of the community, as indicated by the fact that there has been an accepted ontology of epistemic elements from the outset.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Epistemic Stance. The term stance became accepted with the inception of the community.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoSubtypes of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Global Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoSubtypes of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Hierarchical Authority Delegation. The publication of Loiselle’s Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication is a good indication of acceptance of the question.true
Community:Scientonomy26 December 2019CE2019December26NoSubtypes of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Individual Epistemic Agent. This is when Patton's Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy was published. The term was coined in that paper.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoSubtypes of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Action Availability. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy31 December 2023CE2023December31NoSubtypes of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Local Epistemic Action. This is when the first definition of the term was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Logical Presupposition. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's Question Dynamics that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy24 December 2019CE2019December24NoSubtypes of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method Hierarchy. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Mercuri & Barseghyan.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Method became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Method. That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, Method (Barseghyan-2015), became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 April 2016CE2016April1NoSubtypes of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Merge.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Mosaic Split.true
Community:Scientonomy1 September 2019CE2019September1NoSubtypes of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Norm Employment. The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the first definition of the term.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Normative Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Normative Theory. It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2015.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Outcome Inconclusive became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Outcome Inconclusive. That's when the first answer to the question, Outcome Inconclusive (Barseghyan-2015) became accepted, which is an indication that the question itself became accepted as legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoSubtypes of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question Acceptance. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question acceptance was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy12 May 2018CE2018May12NoSubtypes of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Question. This is when Rawleigh's The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change that offered a definition of question was published. This is a good indication that the question of how question is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Scientific Mosaic became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Scientific Mosaic. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Scientific Mosaic (2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSubtypes of Subdiscipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Subdiscipline. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Theory Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Acceptance. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the term itself became accepted.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Pursuit.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory Use.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSubtypes of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Theory. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSupertypes of Acceptance Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Acceptance Criteria. This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015).true
Community:Scientonomy7 September 2016CE2016September7NoSupertypes of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Authority Delegation. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled Authority Delegation is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)true
Community:Scientonomy19 May 2017CE2017May19NoSupertypes of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Community. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change.true
Community:Scientonomy1 January 2016CE2016January1NoSupertypes of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility Criteria.true
Community:Scientonomy28 December 2018CE2018December28NoSupertypes of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Compatibility. The question became accepted with the publication of the paper by Fraser & Sarwar.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSupertypes of Core Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Question. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
Community:Scientonomy1 August 2021CE2021August1NoSupertypes of Core Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Core Theory. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's Disciplines in the Scientonomic Ontology that offered a definition of the term was published. This is a good indication that the question of how the term is to be defined is considered legitimate by the community.true
... further results

Like demarcation and acceptance criteria, compatibility criteria can be part of an epistemic agent's employed method. An epistemic agent employs these criteria to determine whether two elements (e.g. methods, theories, questions) are mutually compatible or incompatible, i.e. whether they can be simultaneously part of the agent's mosaic. In principle, these criteria can be employed to determine the compatibility of elements present in the mosaic, as well as those outside of it (e.g. scientists often think about whether a proposed theory is compatible with the theories actually accepted at the time). Fraser and Sarwar point out that Barseghyan's original definition of the term "excludes a simple point that is assumed elsewhere in scientonomy: elements other than theories (i.e. methods and questions) may be compatible or incompatible with other elements (which, again, need not be theories)".p. 72 To fix this omission, Fraser and Sarwar "suggest that the word ‘theories’ be changed to ‘elements’ to account for the fact that the compatibility criteria apply to theories, methods, and questions alike".p. 72

Different communities can have different compatibility criteria. While some communities may opt to employ the logical law of noncontradiction as their criterion of compatibility, other communities may be more tolerant towards logical inconsistencies. According to Barseghyan, the fact that these days scientists "often simultaneously accept theories which strictly speaking logically contradict each other is a good indication that the actual criteria of compatibility employed by the scientific community might be quite different from the classical logical law of noncontradiction".p. 11 For example, this is apparent in the case of general relativity vs. quantum physics where both theories are accepted as the best available descriptions of their respective domains (i.e. they are considered compatible), but are known to be in conflict when applied simultaneously to such objects as black holes.

Hello world

This is a definition of Method that states "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."

This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Theory Acceptance that states "In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time."

Welcome to the Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
the clearing house for the scientonomic knowledge on the process of scientific change that aims at
There are currently 3,584 pages in this encyclopedia.
Featured Article
Application of Scientonomy to Other Fields
What is the broader relevance of scientonomy? How can scientonomy inform other fields of inquiry? In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Paul Patton in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
Read More
In the news
21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0006 was accepted.
Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia indicating his support for accepting this modification and noted its potential to underpin further work on discipline dynamics. In fact, a significant amount of observational scientonomy work has been carried out in the past few years (including the paper on the rejection of alchemy by Friesen and Patton (2023),1 as well as some more recent papers) that presupposes the acceptance of these definitions, despite the fact that the modification containing them formally remains open. There was very little discussion about the modification, beyond raising points for the community to look forward to in the future, like a brief discussion between Jamie Shaw and Paul Patton about the need for more research on the difference between disciplines and disciplinary communities. The modification was accepted unanimously with 18 votes.
Read More
21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2021-0002 was accepted.
Prior to the 2024 workshop, Carlin Henikoff left a comment on the encyclopedia affirming that the modification should be accepted, but also stating that it was unclear whether it should be accepted as an axiom, per se. During the 2024 workshop, it was clarified that in our taxonomy, if X follows from something else, it is a theorem, but if not, it is an axiom. At the time of the publication of Levesley and Barseghyan’s paper, Henikoff was engaged in conversations in the scientonomy community about whether the law of question acceptance could be deducible from other scientonomic theorems. This clarified the thrust of her comment; since the law hasn't been shown to follow from any other scientonomic theories, it can only be taken as an axiom. There were also concerns about the phrasing of the law. Specifically, Jamie Shaw highlighted that the acceptance of a question cannot be predicated upon the acceptance of all of its presuppositions, simply because a question can have an infinite number of presuppositions. However, the participants were reminded of the difference between epistemic presuppositions and logical presuppositions (proposed by Levesley and Barseghyan in the previously accepted modification Sciento-2021-0001). While a question can have an infinite number of logical presuppositions (i.e. these are “explosive”), the law explicitly talks about epistemic presuppositions, which are not explosive. The modification was accepted nearly unanimously by over two-thirds majority of votes. 17 out of 18 votes were for acceptance.
Read More
21 February 2024: Modification Sciento-2022-0002 was accepted.
Prior to the 2024 workshop, Hakob Barseghyan commented on the encyclopedia with his opinion that the modification should be accepted given that the formulation seemed relatively future-proof: it would not have to change even if more elements are included into our ontology. Paul Patton and Cameron Scott raised some concerns about the differences between norm employment and norm acceptance, and about the derivability of norms from agents’ mosaics, given cases in the history of science where agents accept a norm that is derivable from their mosaic but do not act accordingly (that is, they fail to employ the norm). However, it was noted that this is a separate issue from what the modification aims to do: the law of norm employment does not describe what happens to norms that are already present in the mosaic, but merely describes how norms come to be part of the mosaic. Yet, the discrepancy in the community’s accepted definitions of norm acceptance (as a subtype of theory acceptance) and norm employment was highlighted as a pertinent issue for later focus. After this clarification, there were no further issues raised, and the modification was accepted by over a two-thirds majority of voters. 14 out of 16 votes were for acceptance.
Read More
Recent Suggested Modifications (all)
Sciento-2024-0003: Open
Sanghoon Oh
Accept that element decay is a non-scientonomic phenomenon. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
Read More
Sciento-2024-0002: Open
Sanghoon Oh
Accept a list of necessary indicators of theory decay. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
Read More
Sciento-2024-0001: Open
Sanghoon Oh
Accept that the phenomenon of element decay exists. The modification is currently being evaluated; a verdict is pending.
Read More
Recent Publications (check out the journal)
Discipline Dynamics of Chymistry and Rejection of Alchemy
Paul Patton and Izzy Friesen
Abstract: This paper applies Patton and Al-Zayadi’s scientonomic framework for understanding disciplines to a case study of the development of the chemical discipline ("chymistry") from the 17th century through the early 18th century in Western Europe. Using evidence from the tradition of textbook publication that emerged in the seventeenth-century chymistry, we reconstruct the top-level of the question hierarchy of chymistry. Analyzing how these questions and their associated theories were received, we first show how, starting in the 1660s, alchemy transitioned from a synonym of chymistry to chymistry’s subdiscipline with a more limited scope. We identify that the rejection of alchemy's core questions occurred in the 1720s based on the reception of these questions in scientific publications and by academic institutions. Hence, we conclude that the subdiscipline of alchemy became rejected in the 1720s. In order to conduct our case-study, we closely follow Newman and Principe's research on early modern alchemy and chymistry in our reconstruction of the episode. However, using the scientonomic framework in analyzing this case study reveals the specific dynamics of this instance of sub-discipline rejection. Our deepened understanding of this hallmark historical episode of disciplinary rejection indicates the value of Patton and Al-Zayadi’s theoretical framework for observational scientonomic research.
Read More
Epistemic Actions: A Scientonomic Framework
Joshua Allen
Abstract: In a series of publications, Hasok Chang makes the case that activities carried out by epistemic agents form the basis of the scientific enterprise. This paper provides an action-based scientonomic perspective of scientific practice. I define epistemic action as an action of an epistemic agent that involves an epistemic element and highlight the difference between global and local actions. The availability of a local action to an epistemic agent amounts to the agent employing the norm that the local action is permissible/desirable. To unearth the mechanism by which local actions become available to epistemic agents, I derive the local action availability theorem, according to which, a local epistemic action becomes available to an agent only when its permissibility is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the agent’s mosaic, i.e., from that agent’s employed norms and accepted theories. This framework is then applied to the emergence of the local action of determining the composition of chemical substances by weighing as practiced by Lavoisier and his followers; it is shown that the respective norm became employed in accord with the local action availability theorem.
Read More
Corpus Linguistics Strategies for Identifying Accepted Theories in Early Modern England
G. G. Shan
Abstract: The paper investigates the applicability of corpus linguistics to the construction of a database of intellectual history. Working with the Royal Society Corpus (RSC), it presents a series of corpus queries that can aid with computationally identifying potential instances of communal theory acceptance in England during the period of 1665-1800. These queries allowed to identify a set of noun-adjective pairs potentially synonymous with “accepted theory” and retrieve around 1,400 excerpts potentially indicative of instances of communal theory acceptance. The paper also discusses some strategies for identifying the epistemic agent, as well as the RSC’s place within the broader historical context. Finally, I argue that, in addition to exploring corpus linguistics strategies, methodologies for interpreting computationally retrieved data should also be developed.
Read More

From today's featured list
Some text


Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Test&oldid=16935"