The same idea has been expressed around the same time by Ernan McMullin. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]]
There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community. Consider, for instance the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by David Lindberg,[[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]] or the proposal of synchronous change in paradigm shifts by Thomas Kuhn.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962)]]
[[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that the methods are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]]
[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]
|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2016 it was [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] as formulated by [[Hakob Barseghyan]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]]