Indicators of Method Employment
What kind of historical markers could be taken as indicators that a method was employed by an agent at a given time?
Methods of theory appraisal are different in different communities and change over time. 1 These methods are not always explicitly stated. The question at issue is what sort of historical evidence may be taken as indicative of particular methods employed by a given agent.1
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. Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question. It is formulated as: "The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence."
|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, Indicators of Method Employment(Barseghyan 2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.||Yes|
|Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)||The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence.||2015|
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
|Community||Theory||Accepted From||Accepted Until|
|Scientonomy||Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)||1 January 2016|
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015).
Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015) states: "The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence." One putative method of learning the employed method of the time is by studying texts concerning scientific methodology to learn what method was prescribed by the community or advocated by great scientists. However, such indicators can yield incorrect results. During the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific community explicitly advocated the empiricist-inductivist methodology championed by Isaac Newton. This methodology held that new theories should be deduced from phenomena, and that unobservable entities should not be posited. However, the historical record actually shows that several theories positing unobservable entities did, in fact, become accepted during this period. These include Benjamin Franklin's theory of electricity, which posited an unobservable electric fluid, the phlogiston theory of combustion, and the theory that light is a waveform in a luminiferous ether. Thus the accepted methodology does not necessarily indicate the employed method of the time. 1
More promising indicators of method employment are indirect, via inference from historical facts about what theories are accepted, the process of appraisal, and the prior state of the mosaic. For example, one might note what sort of theories become accepted during a particular time period by some community and try to determine why. If theories become accepted after some novel prediction they make has been confirmed, then the employed method of the time was most likely hypothetico-deductive. On the other hand, if theories do not require confirmed novel predictions to become accepted, then some other method might be the one employed. The most suitable indirect indicators of method employment will vary from case to case with context and culture.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
- Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.