editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 19:46, 23 November 2023
, 19:46, 23 November 2023no edit summary
As vague and unrestricting as this method is, it nevertheless performs two very important functions. First, it indicates the main goal of the whole scientific enterprise – the acquisition of best available descriptions. Second, being a link between accepted theories and more concrete methods, it allows us to modify our methods as we learn new things about the world, i.e. it allows for concrete methods to become employed as we accept new theories. In short, it is this abstract requirement that makes the process of scientific change possible.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 230-231]]<blockquote>
That is, any other method can be conceived as a deductive consequence of the conjunction of this abstract method and some accepted theories:
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=All_employed_methods_derive_from_the_most_abstract_requirement.png}}
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=Insofar as necessary methods go, the philosophy of science was initially not very concerned with this subject. Philosophers like the logical positivists, [[Karl Popper]], and all those up until [[Thomas Kuhn]] held the general tacit belief that there was a singular method of science and that all scientific communities would abide by it. This method was inherently necessary because science was exclusively a function of it; to believe otherwise would imply irrationality in science. For example, with Popper, theories were accepted on a basis of falsification and corroborated content.[[CiteRef::Popper (1963)]] During this time, anything accepted without a method of acceptance was simply unscientific.
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Procedural_Methods_Can_Presuppose_Necessary_Propositions.png}}
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Many different theories satisfy the abstract requirement
|Description=Most theories can satisfy the abstract requirement of the necessary method. Barseghyan (2015) outlines the following example:
<blockquote>Imagine a community with no initial beliefs whatsoever trying to learn something about the world. In other words, the only initial element of their mosaic is the abstract requirement to accept only the best available theories. Now, suppose they come up with all sorts of hypotheses about the world. Since their method is as inconclusive as it gets, chances are many of the hypotheses will simultaneously “meet their expectations”. In such circumstances, different parties will most likely end up accepting different theories, i.e. multiple mosaic splits are virtually inevitable. For example, while some may come to believe that our eyes are trustworthy, others may accept that intuitions (or gut feelings) are the only trustworthy source of knowledge. As a result, the two parties will employ different concrete methods (by the third law) and will end up with essentially different mosaics.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 231-232]]
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Theory Satisfying Abstract Requirement Mosaic 1.png}}
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Theory Satisfying Abstract Requirement Mosaic 2.png}}
<blockquote>These examples are not altogether fictitious. It is possible that something along these lines happened in ancient Greece, where some schools of philosophy accepted that the senses are, by and large, trustworthy, while other schools held that the
senses are unreliable and that the only source of certain knowledge is divine insight (intuition). Thus, the historical fact of the existence of diverse mosaics in the times of Plato and Aristotle shouldn’t come as a surprise. As a result, at early stages, multiple mosaic splits are quite likely.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 233]]</blockquote>
|Example Type=Hybrid
}}
{{Acceptance Record
