editor
44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Seminar 2016
* Currently, the existence of a mosaic split is the only way for us as historians of science to identify a case of inconclusive theory assessment. However, it is logically possible (given the Laws of Scientific Change) for the result of theory assessment to be inconclusive and yet the entire community chooses to accept the theory. In this case, no mosaic split would occur. Is it possible to identify these cases in our historical analysis? (Paul Patton, 2016)
* Are there really instances of necessary theory acceptance, or is ever case of theory assessment inconclusive to a degree? If there are necessary cases, is it possible for us as historians to show decisively that a theory was necessarily accepted rather than accepted after an inconclusive assessment? We can ask the same question with regard to mosaic splits: are necessary splits theoretically possible, or are all mosaic splits the result of inconclusive assessment? And if they are possible, can we ever as historians detect them? (Paul Patton, 2016)
* Imagine two geographically isolated communities with different sets of beliefs. If these communities were to undergo change (without any inter-communication between them) and end up with the same set of beliefs, would they become a single community? (Jennifer Whyte, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* We define a knowledge-producing community as being an epistemic community. Does a community such as a football team— which does not have a collective intentionality to produce knowledge, but may produce some as a by-product (e.g knowledge on the best strategies to win a football game)— count as an epistemic community?* Is there a difference between producing knowledge and acquiring knowledge? If there is a difference, then is a community that holds a mosaic a knowledge-producing community or a knowledge-acquiring community, or do both kinds of communities hold mosaics?* Currently, the Necessary Element theorem states that the method “only accept the best available theories” is a necessary element for any mosaic. Are there any necessary theories in addition to this method? It seems as though there must be some necessary analytic theories, because any scientific enterprise assumes a whole network of analytic propositions. Are there any necessary synthetic propositions? If so, this could mean that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* Although not explicitly stated by the TSC, it seems obvious that in order to become a contender for acceptance, a theory must meet the requirements of the demarcation criteria outlined by the employed method of the time. Given this, is it possible for employed methods to shape theory construction? In addition, it seems as though other elements of the mosaic play a part in shaping theory construction. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not have been built without prior acceptance of the formalism of Hilbert Spaces in mathematics. In what way does our mosaic impose constraints on theory construction? (Jennifer Whyte, 2016)* The TSC currently relies on a vague and intuitive notion of what constitutes a socio-cultural factor; e.g, personal interests, political motivations, economic factors, etc. However, in order to properly analyze the effect of socio-cultural factors on scientific change, a more rigorous definition is needed. How, then, should we define “socio-cultural factors” in the context of the TSC? Furthermore, is the word “factor” really acceptable, since the term already seems to presuppose that one element is influencing another? Perhaps the term “socio-cultural phenomenon” is preferable. (Zach Brown, Mirka Loiselle, 2016)* Can there be delegation authority to tools, or other material objects? Imagine a community which takes all of its scientific knowledge from a giant manuscript. Is the community delegating authority to the long-dead writers of this manuscript, or are they delegating to the book itself? When scientists use an instrument in an experiment, who are they delegating authority to? Standard research practice says that when using an instrument in an experiment, the scientist should cite the manufacturers of the instrument in their research paper. Does this indicate that authority is being delegated to the manufacturers rather than the tool itself? If authority can be delegated to a material object, does this mean that the object is the bearer of a mosaic? (Nick Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)* The Contextual Appraisal Theorem defines “historical context” as “scientific historical context” (i.e, the set of accepted theories and employed methods held at time t). When discussing the influence of socio-cultural factors on the mosaic, however, we shift to a conception of “historical context” which includes non-scientific socio-cultural phenomenon. Should the idea of “historical context” be consistent through the TSC, and if so, how should we define it? Will this alter the Contextual Appraisal Theorem? (Stephen Watt, 2016)* Can a method become employed by being the deductive consequence of an already accepted methodology? How would this affect the Methodology Can Shape Methods theorem, which states that methodology can only affect the employment of methods which are implementations of some more abstract requirement? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016)* Is there any connection between accepted methodology and theory pursuit? For example, string theory is not given much funding in comparison to other pursed theories; this is likely because string theory, which cannot be falsified, goes against the falsificationist methodology widely accepted in the physics community. (Jennifer Whyte, Jacob MacKinnon, Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)
