Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)

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.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this theory:

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

Scientonomy accepts that both the theories and methods of science have changed over history, and differ across disciplines. It nonetheless denies the ‘nothing permanent thesis’ by positing that the fixed stable features of science take the form of the dynamics or laws that govern changes in theories and methods. It has identified a number of such laws of scientific change. Although it is generally accepted that there seems to be no static transhistorical properties of science, this does not deny the possibility of laws governing the process of scientific change in a piecemeal fashion. Theories have, of course, proven themselves to be changeable. Methods of practicing and theory appraising have also proven to be changeable. The aims, goals and philosophies behind what science ought to be have also clearly changed. However, although a case can be made for these static properties of science to be non-permanent, perhaps the fundamental mechanism governing how these properties change can be permanent. Hence, the absence of static properties in science fails to show the impossibility of a general theory of scientific change. There is the possibility of a mechanism of scientific change that governs the changes in theories, methods and other elements of science.

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.