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. +
The is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself legitimate. +
This 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. +
This is the date of the publication of [[Barseghyan et al. (Eds.) (2022)|the collected volume]] that included [[Rawleigh (2022)|Rawleigh's paper]], which indicates that the question is itself came to be considered legitimate. +
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey's paper]] suggesting the first direct answer to the question was published, which is an indicator that the question itself is accepted. +
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]]. +
This is when Barseghyan and Levesley's [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''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. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Theory of Scientific Change]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate. +
This 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. +
This 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. +
The publication of [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey's paper]] where an answer to this question is suggested is an indication that the question itself is accepted. +
The publication of [[Barseghyan and Levesley (2021)|''Question Dynamics'']] by Barseghyan and Levesley where the first law for questions was formulated is a solid indicator that the question itself is accepted. +
This 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. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
The question became ''de facto'' accepted by the community as legitimate 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, [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself legitimate. +
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-2018-0005|suggested modification]]. +
The question became accepted with the publication of [[Mercuri and Barseghyan (2019)|the paper]] by Mercuri & Barseghyan. +
The 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. +
The claim became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|acceptance of Barseghyan's redrafted ontology]]. +
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]]. +
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. +
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-2018-0005|suggested modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0001|suggested modification]]. +
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]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
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. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
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 ''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-2017-0007|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 Loiselle titled [[Loiselle (2017)|Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication]] is a good indication of acceptance of the question.[[CiteRef::Loiselle (2017)]] +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0004|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)]] +
N
That 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. +
The 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 [[Necessary Theories|parent question]] in 2016. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Non-Empty Mosaic theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|the Non-Empty Mosaic theorem]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
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 the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates the question is itself legitimate. +
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 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 [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0002|Sebastien's ontology]] in 2017. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in 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 [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
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-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 the article by Loiselle titled ''[[Loiselle (2017)|Multiple Authority Delegation in Art Authentication]]'' is a good indication of acceptance of the question. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0008|suggested modification]]. +
The theory became tacitly accepted as a result of the acceptance of modification [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|Sciento-2018-0008]]. +
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]]. +
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-2017-0001|suggested modification]]. +
The claim became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0002|acceptance of Sebastien's ontology]]. +
The claim became accepted as a result of the [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0002|acceptance of Sebastien's ontology]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
O
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0004|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. +
The question was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2017. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC. +
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]]. +
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. +
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]]. +
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. +
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]]. +
That'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. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|suggested modification]]. +
That's when [[Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|suggested modification]]. +
That's when [[Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] became published, which is an indication that the question itself is considered legitimate. +
P
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
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 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 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. +
This 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. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
This 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. +
This 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. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Possibility of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself legitimate. +
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 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 idea became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2019-0002|respective modification]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
This 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]]. +
Q
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0001|suggested modification]]. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0003|suggested modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0003|suggested modification]]. +
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. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0002|respective modification]]. +
The theory became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0002|suggested modification]]. +
This is when [[Barseghyan (2022b)|''Question Pursuit as an Epistemic Stance'']] was published. +
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. +
R
This is when [[Palider (2019)|Palider's paper]] presenting the first scientonomic definition of the term was published. +
The definition became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0006|suggested modification]]. +
The solution to the paradox became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|suggested modification]]. +
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]]. +
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]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
This 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. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
The question 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 talked about during the seminar and agreed to be a question. +
The question became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
That 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. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]]. +
S
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, [[Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
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-2018-0009|suggested modification]]. +
This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
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 the implementation of the workflow by the scientonomy community began. +
The 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. +
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, [[Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 30-42]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
That 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. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 61-72]] and 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 was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 61-72]] and 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 was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 61-72]] and 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 was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-29]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The 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. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-30 ]] +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 12-20]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
That 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.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 12-21]] +
That 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.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 52-60]] +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 52-61]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
That 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. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 43-51]] +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]]. +
The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 43-51]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
That 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. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 61-72]] +
The question became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0010|suggested modification]]. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[Scope of Scientonomy (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question itself is legitimate. +
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 the article by Loiselle titled [[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]]. +
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]]. +
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]]. +
That 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. +
We talked about this during the seminar and came to the conclusion we could not immediately answer the question. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2015]]. +
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'']] 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. +
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]]. +
Subtypes 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)]]. +
Subtypes 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) +
Subtypes 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'']]. +
Subtypes of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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'']]. +
Subtypes of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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'']]. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Subtypes of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Subtypes of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Subtypes 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]]. +
Subtypes 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]]. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes 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. +
Subtypes of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Pursuit]]. +
Subtypes of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Use]]. +
Subtypes of Theory became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory]]. The term became accepted together with the rest of the original TSC. +
Supertypes 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)]]. +
Supertypes 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) +
Supertypes 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'']]. +
Supertypes of Compatibility Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Compatibility Criteria]]. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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'']]. +
Supertypes of Demarcation Criteria became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Demarcation Criteria]]. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes of Discipline became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Discipline]]. It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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'']]. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes of Epistemic Stance became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Epistemic Stance]]. The term ''stance'' became accepted with the inception of the community. +
Supertypes of Explicit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Explicit]]. 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Model]]. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. +
Supertypes of Mosaic Merge became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Merge]]. +
Supertypes of Mosaic Split became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Mosaic Split]]. +
Supertypes 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]]. +
Supertypes 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]]. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes 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. +
Supertypes of Theory Pursuit became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Pursuit]]. +
Supertypes of Theory Use became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of [[Theory Use]]. +
Supertypes 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]]. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself legitimate. +
This is when the community accepted its first answer to the question, [[Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself legitimate. +
T
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
The question became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]]. +
The question 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 [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
This is when [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
The question 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 [[Pandey (2023)|Pandey suggested]] the first answer to the question, which is a solid indicator that the question is itself accepted. +
This is when [[Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|Fraser and Sarwar's paper]] presenting the question was published. +
