Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?

In order to assess any scientific theory we must have not only some method of assessment, but we must also have empirical evidence about relevant phenomena. In the case of scientonomy, we must know what sort of evidence is relevant for assessing a scientonomic theory.

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. Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question. It is formulated as: "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."

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016The community has accepted an answer to this question, Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant facts Barseghyan 2015, and this implies the acceptance of the legitimacy of the question itself.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)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.2015

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyAssessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015).

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.1p. 111

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Assessment of Scientonomy. It has the following sub-topic(s):

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.