Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
There has also been debate concerning whether or not scientific methods change over time. The methods of science were once supposed to be fixed. The idea that methods should be included as historically relative elements within a community’s system of beliefs is known as [[Static and Dynamic Methods|the dynamic method thesis]], and was proposed by [[Paul Feyerabend]] in the 1970’s.[[CiteRef::Preston (2016)]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]] In the late 1980's, the question of the existence of static methods became a focal point of the debate between Larry Laudan and John Worrall. In his ''Science and Values'', Laudan (referred to as the 'later Laudan' because his views changed substantially over his career) argued that no method of theory assessment is immune to change. Worrall disagreed, claiming that there are some methods which have persisted throughout all changes.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1988)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1989a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1989)]] The idea that scientific methods change through time is now generally accepted among contemporary historians and philosophers of science.
|History=The term ''scientific mosaic'' was coined by [[Hakob Barseghyan |Barseghyan]] in 2012 within the context of the [[The Theory of Scientific Change]] (TSC). It was suggested at the outset that a scientific mosaic should be understood as a collection of ''changeable '' [[Theory|theories ]] and [[Mehtod|methods]]. The mosaic metaphor was chosen because the tiles of a mosaic may be tightly adjusted, or their may be a considerable gap between them. In scientific mosaics there may be considerable gaps, such as that between general relativity and quantum mechanics, despite the fact that both are accepted parts of the mosaic.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| p. 5]] The [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)|initial notion of ''scientific mosaic'']] worked well with [[Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Barseghyan-2015)|the original ontology of epistemic elements]] suggested by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] as well as [[Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Sebastien-2017)|the modified ontology]] suggested by [[Zoe Sebastien|Sebastien]] in [[Sebastien (2016)|"The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change"]], as both ontologies included only theories and methods as two fundamental types of epistemic elements. With the acceptance of [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]]'s [[Epistemic Elements - Theories Methods and Questions (Rawleigh-2018)|new ontology of epistemic elements]] which added [[Question|questions]] as a new fundamental epistemic element, it became apparent that the definition of scientific mosaic should be adjusted to include questions. [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2018)|One such definition]] was suggested by Barseghyan in his [[Barseghyan (2018)|"Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change"]]. The new definition became [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0009|became accepted]] in 2020. As this definition does not refer to any epistemic elements explicitly, it is in principle compatible with any future ontology insofar as that ontology involves the notions of ''acceptance'' and ''employment''. Epistemic Elements - Questions and Theories (Barseghyan-2018) As questions were included
|Related Topics=Scientific Change, Theory, Method, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Employed Method, Theory Acceptance,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
