Changes

The ''theory of scientific change (TSC)'' is a general descriptive social scientific theory of the actual process of [[Scientific_Change|''scientific change'']] stated in axiomatic deductive form. It is the founding theory of the new field of [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. It was proposed by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015 in his book ''The Laws of Scientific Change''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]].

As in the later works of Larry Laudan [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]], the TSC rejects the idea of a fixed universal scientific method, and accepts the idea that the methods of science have changed over time. This rejection is based on clear evidence from the history of science that the methods of science have, in fact, changed .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 3-21]]. In contrast to most earlier views of the process of scientific change, TSC draws a clear distinction between methods, which are the implicit standards actually used in theory assessment, and the normative epistemic methodologies espoused by scientists or philosophers of science. The TSC takes normative methodological prescriptions to be outside its scope. It seeks a purely descriptive account of the methods employed by scientists to assess theories .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 12-21]]. Following the resolution of logical problems by Sebastien [[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]], it also views the descriptive study of scientific methodologies, and their relationship to employed methods, as within its scope. The TSC rejects Kuhn[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)]] and Laudan's[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] distinction between values and methods, asserting that values can more parsimoniously be included within the category of methods. Thus, the value of predictive accuracy is instead seen as the method 'accept theories that are predictively accurate'.

The TSC draws a distinction between the process of scientific theory construction, in which new theories are generated or constructed, and that of theory appraisal, in which theories are evaluated by a scientific community. It seeks a descriptive account of the process of theory appraisal, but does not view the process of theory construction as a necessary part of its scope .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 21-30]]. Unlike past usage, the TSC seeks a clear technical vocabulary to categorize the stances that a scientific community can take towards a theory. It proposes three categories: acceptance, use, and pursuit. A theory is said to be ''accepted'' if it is taken to be the best available description of its object. A theory is said to be ''used'' if it is taken to be an adequate tool for practical application, and to be ''pursued'' if it is considered worthy of further development .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 30-42]].

Rather than individual scientists, the TSC focuses primarily on the behavior of [[Scientific Community|scientific communities]]. A scientific community consists of individual scientists and their interactions with one another. Past research in the history of science has often focused on prominent individual scientists. The beliefs and decisions of individual scientists are diverse and the relationship between their behavior and that of a scientific community is by no means obvious. Scientific change takes place at the level of the community, when a community as a whole decides to accept a new theory, or employ a new method. This is the reason why the TSC focuses at this level .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 43-52]]. It seeks distinctive historical research methods, such as the analysis of textbooks and encyclopedias, as indicators of the accepted beliefs of a scientific community .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 113-120]].

The TSC seeks to account for the process of scientific change during all historical time periods within which a corpus of accepted scientific beliefs existed. It seeks to account for this entire corpus of beliefs. The TSC defines "science" broadly. For example, during the medieval and early modern period, propositions about the natural world and about theological matters were considered part of the same system of beliefs. For those time periods, the TSC takes theological beliefs to be within its purview .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 3-21]].

The TSC begins by positing the existence of a [[Scientific_Mosaic|''scientific mosaic'']] consisting of the accepted [[Theory|''theories'']] and employed [[Method|''methods'']] of a [[Scientific_Community|scientific community]] at some particular time in history. [[Scientific_Change|Scientific change]] is the process by which the contents of the mosaic are altered over time. The TSC posits four laws as its axioms which together account for changes to both theories and methods. These are, [[The_Zeroth_Law|The Zeroth Law: The law of compatibility]], [[The_First_Law|The First Law: The law of scientific inertia]], [[The_Second_Law|The Second Law: The law of theory acceptance]], and [[The_Third_Law|The Third Law: The law of method employment]]. These laws are summarized briefly here, and are expounded at greater length in their respective encyclopedia articles. A number of theorems have been deduced from these basic laws and they are also summarized here.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]].

The ''[[The_First_Law|First Law]]'', also known as the ''Law of Scientific Inertia'' states that an element of the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. These elements include both [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]]. Replacement takes place in accordance with the [[The_Second_Law|Second]] and [[The Third Law|Third]] Laws .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 123-129]]. The logic behind the first law is somewhat similar to that of Newton's first law of motion. It identifies a 'null case' in which no unbalanced outside forces are acting and therefore nothing changes. Similar notions were suggested earlier by Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos.

The ''[[The_Second_Law|Second Law]]'', also known as the ''Law of Theory Acceptance'' states that in order to become accepted into the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], a [[Theory|theory]] is assessed by the [[Method|method]] actually employed at the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 129-132]]. It is an answer to the a question of how a new theory becomes accepted into the mosaic. Because different communities employ different methods of theory evaluation and the same community can change its methods with time, different assessment outcomes can result. The second law makes an important distinction between the methodology explicitly espoused by a community, and methods it actually employs in theory assessment.

The ''[[The_Third_Law|Third Law]]'', also known as the ''Law of Method Employment'' states that a [[Method|method]] becomes employed when it is deducible from some subset of other employed [[Method|methods]] and accepted [[Theory|theories]] of the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 132-152]].

The [[The_Zeroth_Law|''Zeroth Law'']], also known as the ''Law of Compatibility'' states that at any moment in time, the elements of the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] are compatible with one another. These elements include both [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]]. The compatibility criteria are part of the [[Method|method]] of the time .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 152-164]].

Taking the four laws of scientific change as the starting point, the following theorems about the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]] have so far been deduced .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|Chaptchapt. 5]].

No [[Theory|theory]] acceptance may take place in a genuinely dogmatic [[Scientific Community|community]]. Suppose a community has an accepted theory that asserts that it is the final and absolute truth. By the [[The Third Law|Third Law]] we deduce the method: accept no new theories ever. By the [[The Second Law|Second Law]] we deduce that no new theory can ever be accepted by the employed method of the time. By the [[The First Law|First Law]], we deduce that the accepted theory will remain the accepted theory forever.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 165-167]].

A [[Theory|theory]] becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. By the [[The First Law|First Law]] for theories, an accepted theory will remain accepted until it is replaced by other theories. By the [[The Zeroth Law|Zeroth Law,]] the elements of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] must be compatible with one another. Thus, a theory can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible theory or theories.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 167-172]].

A [[Method|method]] ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with it become employed. By the [[The First Law|First Law]] for methods, an employed method will remain employed until it is replaced by other methods. By the [[The Zeroth Law|Zeroth Law]], the elements of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] must be compatible with one another. Thus, a method can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible method or methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 172-176]].

A [[Method|method]] becomes rejected only when some of the [[Theory|theories]] from which it follows become rejected. By the method rejection theorem, a method is rejected when other methods incompatible with it become employed. By the [[The Third Law|Third Law]], this can happen only when some of the theories from which it follows are also rejected .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 177-183]].

[[Theory Acceptance|Theory assessment]] is an assessment of a proposed modification of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] by the [[Method|method]] employed at the time. By the [[The First Law|First Law]], a [[Theory|theory]] already in the mosaic is no longer appraised. By the [[The Second Law|Second Law]], it is only assessed when it first enters the mosaic.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 185-196]].

Scientific underdetermination is the thesis that the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]] is not deterministic, and science could have evolved differently than it did. Hypothetically, two [[Scientific Community|scientific communities]] developing separately could experience an entirely different sequence of successive states of their respective [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaics.]] Even without the TSC, the implausibility of scientific determinism can be seen by considering the process of [[Theory|theory]] construction, which is outside the present scope of the TSC. Theory construction requires creative imagination, and the formulation of a given theory is therefore not inevitable. Still, underdetermination can also be inferred as a theorem from the axioms of the TSC .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 196-198]].

The [[The Third Law|third law]] allows for two distinct scenarios of method employment. A [[Method|method]] may become employed because it follows strictly from accepted [[Theory|theories]] or employed methods, or it may the abstract requirements of some other employed method. This second scenario allows for creative ingenuity and depends on the technology of the times, therefore it may be fulfilled in many ways and allows underdeterminism .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 198]].

The process of [[Theory Acceptance|theory assessment]] under the TSC is underdetermined for two reasons. First, only [[Theory|theories]] that are constructed are available for assessment. Whether or not a theory is ever constructed is, at least partly a matter of creativity, and is therefore outside the scope of the TSC. Second, it is at least theoretically possible that a process of theory assessment will be inconclusive. This might be because the employed method of the time is vague, or because it involves multiple criteria, only some of which have been met .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| ppp. 199-200]].

Taken together the theorem of underdetermined method change and the theorem of underdetermined theory change imply that scientific change is not a strictly deterministic process .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| ppp. 201-202]].

Mosaic split is a [[Scientific Change|scientific change]] that results when one [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] splits into two or more mosaics containing incompatible accepted [[Theory|theories]] or employed [[Method|methods]]. This entails that a previously united [[Scientific Community|scientific community]] bearing a single mosaic becomes two or more communities, each with its own mosaic. Mosaic merge is a scientific change in which two or more mosaics containing incompatible theories or methods become a single united mosaic with compatible theories and methods. This likewise entails the formation of a single community out of two or more .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp.202-216]].

Necessary [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] split is a form of mosaic split that must happen if it is ever the case that two incompatible [[Theory|theories]] both become accepted under the employed [[Method|method]] of the time. Since the theories are incompatible, under the [[The Zeroth Law|zeroth law]], they cannot be accepted into the same mosaic, and a mosaic split must then occur, as a matter of logical necessity .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 204-207]].

Possible [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] split is a form of mosaic split that can happen if it is ever the case that [[Theory|theory]] assessment reaches an inconclusive result. In this case, a mosaic split can, but need not necessarily, result .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 208-213]].

A dynamic [[Method|method]] is one that is changeable and has changed over the history of science. A static method one that has persisted unchanged throughout that history. A debate which occurred through a series of papers by [[Larry Laudan]] and John Worrall identified a distinction between substantive methods and procedural methods. Substantive methods are those which presuppose at least one contingent proposition (i.e. something that could be otherwise, such as a fact or theory about the empirical world) and are therefore changeable. Procedural methods don't presuppose any contingent propositions and rely only on logically necessary truths and therefore must be fixed. The TSC has important implications for this debate .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| ppp.217-225]].

The thesis of [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty/ fallibilism] asserts that any [[Theory|theory]] referring to the empirical world is always vulnerable to rejection. The synchronism of [[Method|method]] rejection theorem, detailed above, asserts that a method becomes rejected only when some of the theories from which it follows are rejected. Therefore any method that follows from an empirical theory is always vulnerable to rejection. All substantive methods are therefore necessarily also dynamic .[[Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 223-224]].

The [[Method|method]] rejection theorem, detailed above, asserts that a method ceases to be employed when other methods incompatible with the method become employed. By definition, a necessary truth, or tautology, cannot be incompatible with other necessary or contingent truths. Thus, all procedural methods are also static .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 224-225]].

The question of necessary elements is the question of what, if anything, the TSC requires to be theoretically present at the outset, in order for scientific knowledge to get its start.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 226-233]]. 

The non-empty [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] theorem asserts that in order for a process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]] to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one element. Scientific change is impossible in an empty mosaic. It can be deduced from the [[The Second Law|second law]], which asserts that in order to become accepted into the mosaic, a [[Theory|theory]] is assessed by the [[Method|method]] actually employed at the time, and the [[The Third Law|third law]], which asserts that a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 226]].

The necessary method theorem asserts that the necessary element required by the non-empty mosaic theorem must be a method. It can be deduced from the second law that in order for a new theory to become accepted, the mosaic must contain at least one employed method. It can be deduced from the third law that in order for a new method to become employed, the mosaic must contain at least one theory and one other employed method. Therefore the initial element could only be a method. Barseghyan [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 230]] suggests that the primordial method might be something extremely general and vague, such as '"accept only the best theories'".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 228-233]].

The role of sociocultural factors as posited by the TSC can be deduced from the second law, which asserts that a theory will be accepted only when it satisfies the employed method of the times. Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the employed method of the time .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 233-240]].

The role of methodologies in shaping methods under the TSC is indicated by the third law, under which the employed method is strictly determined by other methods and accepted theories of the time. A methodology can shape employed methods, but only if its requirements implement abstract requirements of some other employed method.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp.240-243]].