Mechanism of Theory Acceptance
How do theories become accepted into a mosaic?
The question of theory acceptance is one of the central problems of theoretical scientonomy. Any scientonomic theory should explain how theories become part of a mosaic. Initially, when philosophy had a static conception of science, this question did not exist. However, as science progressed, it soon became clear that science replaces its theories with theories that it considers superior, and it does this on a continuous basis. At this point, how science accepts theories became a central question for the philosophy of science. Answering this question is not trivial, because all of the obvious answers, such as verisimilitude and best fit to the data, all come with philosophical problems. The difficulty of solving the problem was compounded when it was realized that the methods by which theories are accepted changes over time. One example of
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
Contents
Broader History
This question has been one of the central questions of the classic philosophy of science. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that no philosopher of science could bypass this issue.
TODO: Prehistory here.
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | 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. | Yes |
All Theories
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) | In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time. | 2015 |
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted. | 2017 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 | 29 November 2017 |
Scientonomy | The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) | 29 November 2017 |
Suggested Modifications
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Verdict | Verdict Rationale | Date Assessed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2017-0004 | Scientonomy | 5 February 2017 | Accept the reformulation of the second law which explicitly links theory assessment outcomes with theory acceptance/unacceptance. To that end, accept three new definitions for theory assessment outcomes (satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive) as well as the new ontology of theory assessment outcomes, and accept the new definition of employed method. | Accepted | The new formulation of the law became accepted as a result of a communal consensus. It was noted by the commentators that the "modification provides a much improved formulation of the 2nd law".c1 It was noted that the new formulation "decouples the method from acceptance outcomes" and "is needed to avoid a contradiction for cases where assessment by the method is inconclusive, but the theory is accepted".c2 It was agreed that the new law eliminates two of the major flaws of the previous formulation. First, it clearly states the relations between different assessment outcomes and the actual theory acceptance/unacceptance. Second, it clearly forbids certain conceivable courses of events and, thus, doesn't sounds like a tautology.c3 | 29 November 2017 |
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted."
According to this formulation of the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
Unlike the previous formulation of the second law, this formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. In particular, it specifies what happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when a certain assessment outcome obtains.
In addition, this new formulation is clearly not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Scientific Change.
It has the following sub-topic(s):
- Nature of Appraisal
- Role of Definitions in Scientific Change
- Status of Reasons
- Sufficient Reason and Theory Acceptance
- Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Demarcation and Acceptance
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):