Difference between revisions of "Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)"
Paul Patton (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Theory |Title=Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent |Theory Type=Descriptive |Formulation Text=If there were indeed nothing permanent in science the scientonomy wo...") |
Paul Patton (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Title=Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent | |Title=Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent | ||
|Theory Type=Descriptive | |Theory Type=Descriptive | ||
− | |Formulation Text=If there were indeed nothing permanent in science | + | |Formulation Text=If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that their are regularities in the process of scientific change. |
|Topic=Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent | |Topic=Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent | ||
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, |
Revision as of 15:29, 30 March 2017
This is an answer to the question Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent that states "If there were indeed nothing permanent in science, then scientonomy would be impossible, however, scientonomy posits only that there are regularities in the process of scientific change."
Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. | Yes |
Question Answered
Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: How can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?
See Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent for more details.
Description
ToDo
Reasons
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
References
- ^ Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.