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
{{Topic|Question=What is the status of '''models''' in the mosaic?|Topic Type=Descriptive|Description=In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of ''models''. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered ''theory'' and ''proposition'' as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is ''model'' somehow different from ''a set of propositions''? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions.|Parent Topic=|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,|Formulated Year=2016|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,|Page Status=Needs Editing}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=April|Accepted From Day=1|Accepted From Approximate=No|Acceptance Indicators=This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the #REDIRECT [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016Existence of Model]].|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Approximate=No}}
Redirected page to Existence of Model
