Under which circumstances, changes in beliefs in methods would qualify as an anomaly for Scientonomy?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Andy Jiao in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory.
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||4 October 2018||It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall.||Yes|
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015).
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015) states: "At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory."
Some facts ought to be relevant to the assessment of a theory because the content of the theory itself implies their relevance, and others ought to be relevant simply by definition. When assessing a theory concerning scientific change, relevant facts that ought necessarily to be considered include questions pertinent to scientific change processes. For example: What theories and methods were part of the scientific mosaic of the community in question, both before and after the instance of scientific change? What modifications were proposed and what parts of the mosaic did they intend to replace? Which of these modifications became accepted into the mosaic, and how?
Relevant questions will depend on accepted views about the scope of scientonomy. For example, if scientonomy deals with scientific change at the level of scientific communities, then facts about the accepted views of communities ought to be relevant, and the views of particular individuals ought not. If scientonomy deals only with theory appraisal and not with theory construction, then it follows that facts concerning the former, but not the latter, ought to be considered.
Relevant facts will also depend on the content of the mosaic at the time in question. For example, it is anachronistic to speak of religious constraints on science in the seventeenth century since, at that time, religion and natural philosophy were not regarded as separate domains of knowledge, but as part of the same mosaic.1
This question is a subquestion of Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts.
- ^ Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.