Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,170
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023) (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, 2 January 2024
, 2 JanuaryCreated page with "{{Theory |Topic=Mechanism of Theory Rejection |Theory Type=Descriptive |Subject=Theory |Predicate=mechanism of inertia |Title=Theory Rejection theorem |Alternate Titles= |Titl..."
{{Theory
|Topic=Mechanism of Theory Rejection
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=Theory
|Predicate=mechanism of inertia
|Title=Theory Rejection theorem
|Alternate Titles=
|Title Formula=
|Text Formula=
|Formulation Text=A theory becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the theory become part of the mosaic.
|Object=
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey, Hakob Barseghyan
|Formulated Year=2023
|Formulation File=Theory Rejection Theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023).png
|Description=According to Pandey's new formulation of '''the theory rejection theorem''', a [[Theory|theory]] becomes '''rejected''' only when other [[Epistemic Element|epistemic elements]] that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. This formulation differs from Barseghyan's [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|original formulation]] in that it allows a theory to be replaced by an epistemic element of ''any'' type, not just by other theories. In other respects, Pandey's formulation is similar to Barseghyan's.
Implicit in both theorems is the idea that each theory is assessed on an "individual basis by its compatibility with the propositions of the newly accepted theory".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 168]] If it turns out that a previously accepted theory is compatible with the newly accepted theory, it remain in the agent's mosaic.
Although we normally expect a theory to be replaced by another theory in the same "field" of inquiry, Barseghyan and Pandey both agree that this is not necessarily the case. For example, Barseghyan writes, "HSC knows several cases where an accepted theory became rejected simply because it wasn’t compatible with new accepted theories of some other fields".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 171]] Similarly, Pandey provides several examples of this phenomenon in ''Dilemma of The First Law''.[[CiteRef::Pandey (2023)]]
Barseghyan summarizes '''the theory rejection theorem''' as such:
<blockquote>In short, when the axioms of a theory are replaced by another theory, some of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in the mosaic, provided that they are compatible with the newly accepted theory. This is essentially what the ''theory rejection theorem'' tells us. Thus, if someday our currently accepted general relativity gets replaced by some new theory, the theories that followed from general relativity, such as the theory of black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the mosaic. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 171]] </blockquote>
|Resource=Pandey (2023)
|Prehistory=
|History=Barseghyan's original 2015 formulation makes a restrictive claim that a theory can be replaced only by another theory.
In 2023, Pandey suggested a correction to the theorem by allowing theories to be replaced by epistemic elements of ''all'' types, which is more in tune with the first law from which the theorem presumably follows.
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
}}
|Topic=Mechanism of Theory Rejection
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=Theory
|Predicate=mechanism of inertia
|Title=Theory Rejection theorem
|Alternate Titles=
|Title Formula=
|Text Formula=
|Formulation Text=A theory becomes rejected when other elements that are incompatible with the theory become part of the mosaic.
|Object=
|Authors List=Aayu Pandey, Hakob Barseghyan
|Formulated Year=2023
|Formulation File=Theory Rejection Theorem (Barseghyan-Pandey-2023).png
|Description=According to Pandey's new formulation of '''the theory rejection theorem''', a [[Theory|theory]] becomes '''rejected''' only when other [[Epistemic Element|epistemic elements]] that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. This formulation differs from Barseghyan's [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|original formulation]] in that it allows a theory to be replaced by an epistemic element of ''any'' type, not just by other theories. In other respects, Pandey's formulation is similar to Barseghyan's.
Implicit in both theorems is the idea that each theory is assessed on an "individual basis by its compatibility with the propositions of the newly accepted theory".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 168]] If it turns out that a previously accepted theory is compatible with the newly accepted theory, it remain in the agent's mosaic.
Although we normally expect a theory to be replaced by another theory in the same "field" of inquiry, Barseghyan and Pandey both agree that this is not necessarily the case. For example, Barseghyan writes, "HSC knows several cases where an accepted theory became rejected simply because it wasn’t compatible with new accepted theories of some other fields".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 171]] Similarly, Pandey provides several examples of this phenomenon in ''Dilemma of The First Law''.[[CiteRef::Pandey (2023)]]
Barseghyan summarizes '''the theory rejection theorem''' as such:
<blockquote>In short, when the axioms of a theory are replaced by another theory, some of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in the mosaic, provided that they are compatible with the newly accepted theory. This is essentially what the ''theory rejection theorem'' tells us. Thus, if someday our currently accepted general relativity gets replaced by some new theory, the theories that followed from general relativity, such as the theory of black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the mosaic. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 171]] </blockquote>
|Resource=Pandey (2023)
|Prehistory=
|History=Barseghyan's original 2015 formulation makes a restrictive claim that a theory can be replaced only by another theory.
In 2023, Pandey suggested a correction to the theorem by allowing theories to be replaced by epistemic elements of ''all'' types, which is more in tune with the first law from which the theorem presumably follows.
|Page Status=Stub
|Editor Notes=
}}
