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
no edit summary
There has also been debate concerning whether or not scientific methods change over time. The methods of science were once supposed to be fixed. The idea that methods should be included as historically relative elements within a community’s system of beliefs is known as [[Static and Dynamic Methods|the dynamic method thesis]], and was proposed by [[Paul Feyerabend]] in the 1970’s[[CiteRef::Preston (2016)]], [[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975)]]. In the late 1980's, the question of the existence of static methods became a focal point of the debate between Larry Laudan and John Worrall. In his ''Science and Values'', Laudan (referred to as the 'later Laudan' because his views changed substantially over his career) argued that no method of theory assessment is immune to change. Worrall disagreed, claiming that there are some methods which have persisted throughout all changes[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984)]],[[CiteRef::Worrall (1988)]], [[CiteRef::Laudan (1989)]], [[CiteRef::Worrall (1989)]]. The idea that scientific methods change through time is now generally accepted among contemporary historians and philosophers of science.
|History=The term ''scientific mosaic'' was coined by Hakob Barseghyan in 2012 within the context of the [[The Theory of Scientific Change]] (TSC). It was suggested at the outset that a scientific mosaic should be understood as a collection of changeable theories and methods. The mosaic metaphor was chosen because the tiles of a mosaic may be tightly adjusted, or their may be a considerable gap between them. In scientific mosaics there may be considerable gaps, such as that between general relativity and quantum mechanics, despite the fact that both are accepted parts of the mosaic [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| p. 5]].
When the TSC was initially formulated, it made no mention of the status of [[Theory#Descriptive and Normative|normative propositions]] in relation to the scientific mosaic. In 2014, Joel Burkholder identified a problem that would arise if normative propositions, such as, ethical conceptions or [[Methodology|methodologies]] – were included in the mosaic. If this were the case, then by [[The Third Law|the third law]], methods would have to be deducible from accepted methodologies. However, the history of science shows that methodologies and methods often conflict. How, then, can the latter be a deductive consequence of the former?
In 2015, [[Modification:2016-0002|Zoe Sebastien proposed]] that the definition of “[[theory]]” should be changed to include both descriptive and normative propositions. She showed how this change could be implemented without violating [[The Zeroth Law|the law of compatibility]]. Her [[Modification:2016-0002|suggestion]] became [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] in 2016[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]].
|Related Topics=Scientific Change, Theory, Method,
}}
