Property:Acceptance Indicators
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This is a property of type text.
A
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]]. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0012|suggested modification]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0003|respective modification]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
The publication of [[Patton (2019)]] is and indication of the acceptance of the question. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The question was raised by Barseghyan in his original formulation of scientonomy [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 99-109]], although he was unable to supply a normative answer. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 109-113]] and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. +
The 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. +
The law became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
Associations 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)]]. +
Associations of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
Associations of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Associations of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
Associations of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Associations 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. +
Associations of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline Acceptance]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
Associations of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Associations of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations 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. +
Associations of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Associations of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Element]]. The term [[Epistemic Element|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. +
Associations of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
Associations of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Associations of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Global Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
Associations of Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Implicit]]. The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
Associations of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Individual Epistemic Agent]]. This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
Associations of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Action Availability]]. This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Associations of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Logical Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
Associations of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method Hierarchy]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
Associations 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. +
Associations of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Associations of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Associations of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Associations of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Norm Employment]]. The question became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|acceptance]] of [[Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)|the first definition of the term]]. +
Associations 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]]. +
Associations of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Acceptance]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Associations of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Associations 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. +
Associations 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. +
Associations of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Pursuit]]. +
Associations of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Use]]. +
Associations of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory]]. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. +
The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0017|respective modification]]. +
The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.[[CiteRef::Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)]] +
B
This 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. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
C
This 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. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0012|suggested modification]]. +
The definition of the term that assumed this association was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The existence of communities has been accepted since the inception of scientonomy. +
The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0015|suggested modification]]. +
The corollary became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0015|suggested modification]]. +
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0017|suggested modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0016|the respective modification]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
D
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0007|suggested modification]]. +
The claim became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology]]. +
The claim became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology]]. +
The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question in [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0001|suggested modification]]. +
The existence of descriptive theories became accepted together with the acceptance of the rest of the original TSC. +
The question became accepted with the acceptance of the rest of the TSC. +
That 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. +
This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Disjointness 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)]]. +
Disjointness of Accidental Group became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Accidental Group]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Disjointness of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
Disjointness of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Disjointness of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Disjointness of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
Disjointness of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
Disjointness of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline Acceptance]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
Disjointness of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Disjointness of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Disjointness of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Element]]. The term [[Epistemic Element|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. +
Disjointness of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
Disjointness of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Disjointness of Error became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Error]]. This is when Machado-Marques and Patton's [[Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)|''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. +
Disjointness of Explicable-Implicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Explicable-Implicit]]. The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
Disjointness of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Global Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Disjointness of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
Disjointness of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Individual Epistemic Agent]]. This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
Disjointness of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Action Availability]]. This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Disjointness of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Disjointness of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Logical Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
Disjointness of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method Hierarchy]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Disjointness of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Disjointness of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Disjointness of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Norm Employment]]. The question became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|acceptance]] of [[Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)|the first definition of the term]]. +
Disjointness 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]]. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Acceptance]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Disjointness of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness 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. +
Disjointness of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Pursuit]]. +
Disjointness of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Use]]. +
Disjointness of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory]]. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. +
The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
E
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|suggested modification]]. +
This 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. +
This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0014|suggested modification]]. +
This is when the notion of epistemic agent was coined. +
The publication of [[Barseghyan (2018)]] is an indication of the acceptance of the term. +
The existence of epistemic communities became ''de facto'' accepted after the publication of [[Overgaard (2017)|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. +
This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's paper]] explicitly stating the reason was published. +
This is when the term [[Epistemic Agent|epistemic agent]] was coined and, as a result, this formulation superseded the idea that [[Bearers of Mosaic - Communities (Barseghyan-2015)|communities are bearers of a mosaic]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
The existence of epistemic elements has been tacitly accepted since the inception of scientonomy. +
The term [[Epistemic Element|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. +
The definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0001|respective modification]]. +
The definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0001|respective modification]]. +
This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
The theory became tacitly accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. +
The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
The [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|acceptance]] of definitions as a subtype of theory indicates that the question of epistemic stances that can be taken towards definitions became accepted. +
The question became tacitly accepted together with the acceptance of the original TSC. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0016|suggested modification]]. +
While, in this general form, the question wasn't clearly stated in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']], it was implicit in a more specific question of [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories]]. +
The theory became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
This 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. +
This theory was accepted as a ripple effect of the acceptance of the concept of norm employment through the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|suggested modification]]. +
The question was ''de facto'' accepted as a result of the acceptance of [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0002]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0002|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. +
The theory became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The theory became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The theory became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
This 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. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0004|suggested modification]]. +
This is when Machado-Marques and Patton's [[Machado-Marques and Patton (2021)|''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. +
Existence 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)]]. +
Existence of Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Authority Delegation]]. The publication of the article by Overgaard and Loiselle titled [[Overgaard and Loiselle (2016)|Authority Delegation]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.Overgaard and Loiselle (2016) +
Existence of Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Existence of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Existence of Compatibility became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|the paper]] by Fraser & Sarwar. +
Existence of Definition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Definition]]. The question became accepted as legitimate with the publication of Barseghyan's [[Barseghyan (2018)|''Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change'']]. +
Existence of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Existence 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. +
Existence of Discipline Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline Acceptance]]. This is when Patton and Al-Zayadi's [[Patton and Al-Zayadi (2021)|''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. +
Existence of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Existence of Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Existence 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. +
Existence of Epistemic Community became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Community]]. The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
Existence of Epistemic Element became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Element]]. The term [[Epistemic Element|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. +
Existence of Epistemic Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
Existence of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Existence of Global Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Global Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Existence of Hierarchical Authority Delegation became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Hierarchical Authority Delegation]]. The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
Existence of Individual Epistemic Agent became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Individual Epistemic Agent]]. This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
Existence of Local Action Availability became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Action Availability]]. This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Existence of Local Epistemic Action became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Local Epistemic Action]]. This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
Existence of Logical Presupposition became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Logical Presupposition]]. This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
Existence of Method Hierarchy became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Method Hierarchy]]. The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
Existence 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. +
Existence of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Existence of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Existence of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Existence of Norm Employment became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Norm Employment]]. The question became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|acceptance]] of [[Norm Employment (Barseghyan-2018)|the first definition of the term]]. +
Existence 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]]. +
Existence of Question Acceptance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question Acceptance]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Existence of Question became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Question]]. This is when Rawleigh's [[Rawleigh (2018)|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. +
Existence 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. +
Existence 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. +
Existence of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Pursuit]]. +
Existence of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Use]]. +
Existence of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory]]. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0011|suggested modification]]. +
The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0011|suggested modification]]. +
Testing the subtypes +
The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
G
This is when [[Global Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0001|respective modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0012|suggested modification]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of Overgaard's [[Overgaard (2017)|''A Taxonomy for Social Agents of Scientific Change'']]. +
H
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0006|respective modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0007|suggested modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0017|respective modification]]. +
The publication of Loiselle’s [[Loiselle (2017)|''Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication'']] is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
I
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0011|suggested modification]]. +
The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. +
This 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. +
The question became accepted accepted as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0004|suggested modification]]. +
The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] +
This 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. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall]]. +
The theory became accepted as the result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0015|respective modification]] +
This is when the idea that individuals can be epistemic agents became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0015|respective modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as the result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0015|respective modification]] +
This is when [[Patton (2019)|Patton's ''Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy'']] was published. The term was coined in that paper. +
The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0011|suggested modification]]. +
The publication of [[Maxim Mirkin]]'s ''[[Mirkin (2018)|The Status of Technological Knowledge in the Scientific Mosaic]]'' is an indication of the acceptance of the term by the community. +
That's when [[Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate. +
L
This is when [[Local Action Availability (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
This is when [[Local Epistemic Action (Allen-2023)|the first definition of the term]] was suggested, indicating that the term itself is accepted. +
The definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0001|respective modification]]. +
The definition was accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2021-0001|respective modification]]. +
This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
M
This 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. +
It was asked in the seminar and upon uniform agreement we accepted it as an open question. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
