editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 21:00, 6 November 2023
, 21:00, 6 November 2023no edit summary
Because any time an assessment outcome is [[Outcome Inconclusive|inconclusive]] we may either accept or reject the theory being assessed we always face the possibility that one subsection of the community will reject the theory and another subsection will accept it. In these cases the two communities now bear distinct mosaics and a mosaic split has occurred. However it is important to note that the ambiguity inherent in inconclusive assessments means that it is never entailed that there will be competing subsections of the community. A community may, in the face of an inconclusive assessment, collectively agree to accept or reject the theory being assessed. Thus, in cases with an inconclusive assessment mosaic split is possible but never necessarily entailed by the circumstances.
|Example Type=Hybrid
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Possible Mosaic Split: Acceptance of the Cartesian natural philosophy in Cambridge circa 1680.
|Description=Barseghyan (2015) contrasts the replacement of the Aristotelian-Medieval method with the Newtonian method in Britain and the Cartesian method in France -- a broad case which might seem like an instance of mosaic split, but is not -- with a more specific historical example of potential mosaic split:
<blockquote>Let us begin with the available historical data. Prior to the 1680s, the Aristotelian-medieval natural philosophy was taught in schools across Europe, with alternative theories included into the curricula only sporadically. If my understanding is correct, the first university where the Cartesian natural philosophy was accepted and taught on a regular basis was Cambridge. Although the theory had been sporadically taught since the 1660s, it began to be taught systematically only circa 1680.379 Thus, it is not surprising that when one Cambridge professor Isaac Newton was writing his magnum opus, the main target of his criticism was Descartes’s theory, not that of Aristotle. According to the historical data, during the last two decades of the 17th century, Cambridge remained the only university where the Cartesian theory was generally accepted. The situation changed circa 1700, when the Cartesian natural philosophy together with its respective modifications by Huygens, Malebranche and others became accepted in France380, Holland381 and Sweden382. As for Oxford, it never accepted the Cartesian theory but switched directly to the Newtonian theory circa 1690.383 In Cambridge, the transition from the Cartesian natural philosophy to that of Newton took place in the 1700s.384 Most likely, the universities of the Dutch Republic (Leiden and Utrecht) were the first on the Continent to accept the Newtonian theory by 1720.385 In France and Sweden, the Newtonian theory replaced the Cartesian natural philosophy circa 1740.386 The picture wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t mention the important theological differences: Catholic theology was accepted in Paris; Anglican theology was accepted in Oxford and Cambridge; in Holland and Sweden the accepted theology was that of Protestantism.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 211-212]]</blockquote>
[Timeline Diagram]
TODO: Finish
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
