171
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Ontology of Scientific Change (view source)
Revision as of 21:36, 10 March 2018
, 21:36, 10 March 2018no edit summary
Shifting backwards, Imre Lakatos generated a holistic account of scientific change slightly regressive to previous ontologies. Lakatos kept Kuhn’s view of the fluidity of paradigms within scientific communities however, with two small modifications. Firstly, Lakatos saw paradigms as research programmes, of which many simultaneously existed, and secondly Lakatos believed they followed a more rational model of change, i.e. modifications were judged as regressive or progressive based on certain conditions.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1970)|pp. 31-34]] With regards to regression, Paul Feyerabend criticized Lakatos for once again suggesting that theories can only be pursued. The whole system Lakatos built was a high functioning competition between research programmes.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1970a)]] As such, per Lakatos, theories could never really be accepted, and thus they carried the potential to threaten science with a potentially infinite number of theories all of which are rational to pursue.
Finally, Larry Laudan paints the closest picture to the ontology scientonomy posits today. Laudan recognized values, theories, and methodologies as epistemic elements with relations to scientists as epistemic agents. Theories could be accepted under his view and methodologies could be employed. Each epistemic element under Laudan’s reticulated model could be modified. Laudan did not recognize the potential of theories to be used but not accepted but he did recognize pursued and accepted theories in contrast to Lakatos and the logical positivists.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]]
|History=In [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]]'s [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']], the question of the ontology of scientific change is discussed without being explicitly formulated. While the question has been accepted and discussed at length by [[Community:Scientonomy|the scientonomy community]] ever since its inception, it wasn't until the early 2017 when the question was openly formulated and documented.
