Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
{{Topic
|Subject=Theory Acceptance
|Question=How do theories become ''accepted'' into a mosaic?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Subfield=
|Inherited From=
|Heritable=
|Question Text Formula=
|Question Title Formula=
|Question=
|Question Title=
|Predicate=
|Object Type=
|Object Value True=
|Object Value False=
|Object Class=
|Object Enum Values=
|Object Regexp=
|Single Answer Text Formula=
|Multiple Answers Text Formula=
|Answer Title Formula=
|Description=The question of theory acceptance is one of the central problems of theoretical [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. Any scientonomic theory should explain how theories become part of a mosaic. It is clear that epistemic agents replaces their theories with theories that they considers superior, and they do this on a regular basis. Thus, the question is ''how'' epistemic agents accept theories.
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan
|Formulated Year=2015
Consequently, in 2017, [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation]] of the law was suggested by [[Paul Patton|Patton]], [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard]], and Barseghyan, which [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted]] towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated second law also clearly indicated the possibility of [[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome]] of theory assessment, as opposed to sneaking the idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the phenomenon of mosaic split.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]
|Current View=
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment, Mechanism of Theory Rejection
|Sorting Order=200
|Page Status=Editor Approved
|Editor Notes=
|Order=1
|Lower Order Elements=
}}
{{YouTube Video

Navigation menu