Changes

|Description=[[Theory]] construction is the generation, or creation of new theories. Theory appraisal is the process by which a theory is evaluated for acceptance into a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. While these two processes may be historically intertwined, they nonetheless represent two distinctive perspectives that one might take towards a theory. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 21-30]] Ought scientonomy deal with the process of theory construction, of that of theory appraisal, or with both of them?

|Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy

|Formulated Year=2015

|Prehistory=The current statement of this question is the product of a long prior history. The precursor to the distinction between theory construction and theory appraisal was the distinction between the context of discovery, which is a historical and creative process having to do with the construction of the theory, and the context of justification, which is the supposedly distinct logical enterprise of the defense and appraisal of a theory. This distinction was first explicitly drawn by [[Hans Reichenbach]]. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1980)]] It was implicit in works of scientific methodology going back to the nineteenth century, and has been traced by Popper back to Kant. [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]] The idea that the historical context of discovery can be clearly distinguished from the logical context of justification was questioned by [[Norwood Hanson|Hanson]], [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], and [[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend]], who argued that the two were thoroughly intertwined. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |p. 23]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a) |p. 149]]

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=Editor Approved

}}

{{Acceptance Record

|Acceptance Indicators=The community has accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-30 ]]

|Still Accepted=Yes

|Accepted Until Approximate=No

}}