Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Paul Hoyningen-Huene [[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2006) |pp. 128-130]] proposed a lean distinction between the two contexts, supposing that they are simply two different perspectives that can be taken towards scientific knowledge. He did not see discovery and justification are two distinct processes, thereby sidestepping earlier objections. While accepting this lean distinction, Barseghyan [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 23-25]] argued that the terms 'discovery' and 'justification' are misleading names to apply to the two perspectives. The term 'discovery' is inappropriate because a discovery is generally taken to be an epistemic achievement that has been positively appraised, such as the discovery of the planet Neptune. The term 'construction', he supposes, is better suited to refer to the creative processes by which new theories are formulated. These processes are generally seen to lie within the subject matter of psychology and sociology. Theories undergo a process of appraisal by a scientific community which involves reasoning processes. This question is a question about what scientonomy ought to take as its subject matter, theory construction, theory appraisal, or both.
|Page Status=Needs EditingEditor Approved
}}
{{Acceptance Record
2,020

edits

Navigation menu