editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mosaic Split (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 17:32, 31 October 2023
, 17:32, 31 October 2023no edit summary
|Topic=Mosaic Split
|Theory Type=Definition
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation Text=A scientific change where one mosaic transforms into two or more mosaics.
|Formulation File=Mosaic Split p 202.jpg
|Authors ListDescription=Hakob To understand what is meant by mosaic split, consider the following case. "A community initially accepts some theories and employs some methods; in other words, initially, there is one mosaic of theories and methods. Also, as a result of some events, this initially united community transforms into two different communities with two somewhat different mosaics of theories and methods."[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p.202]] This is different than mere disagreement. ''Mosaic split'' only occurs if there are two communities that each present their different theories as accepted (in contexts like articles,conferences, textbooks and so on). That is, there is disagreement concerning the ''status'' of certain theories, and not just on the theories themselves.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.203]] There are several possible scenarios for ''mosaic split'' to occur. As per Barseghyan (2015), here are the possibilities: "a mosaic can split when the requirements of the current method are simultaneously satisfied by two or more competing theories. On the other hand, a mosaic can split when the outcome of theory assessment is inconclusive. While in the former case a mosaic split takes place ''necessarily'', in the latter case it is merely ''possible''."[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|Formulated Year=p.203]] The derivation from these scenarios to resulting theorems about mosaic split can be found respectively on the [[Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] and [[Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015|Description=TODO)]] pages.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=
|History=
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Scientific Disagreement does not equate to Mosaic Split
|Description=Barseghyan (2015) illustrates the distinction here succinctly:
<blockquote>Two physicists or even two groups of physicists may disagree on one topic or another. Yet, as long as they take the same theories as accepted ones, there is a regular scientific disagreement. Suppose, for instance, there are two groups of quantum physicists which subscribe to two different quantum theories – say, the so-called Many Worlds theory and GRW theory respectively. Suppose also that the two groups understand that the currently accepted theory is the orthodox quantum mechanics. Consequently, in their university lectures both groups present the orthodox theory as the currently accepted one. Here we have a typical example of scientific disagreement. The members of the two groups may even tell their students that they personally believe there is a better theory available. But as long as they stress that their personal favourite theory is not the currently accepted one, we deal with an instance of regular scientific disagreement.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.202-3]]</blockquote>
Barseghyan also provides a more historically grounded example in the context of the physics community:
<blockquote>Imagine a group of physicists circa 1918 who considered general relativity as the best available description of its domain. This view was in disagreement with the position of the vast majority of scientists who believed in the then-accepted version of the Newtonian theory. Yet there was no mosaic split, since both the Newtonians and Einsteinians clearly realised which theory was accepted and which theory was merely a contender. Take Eddington, for instance, who was in that small group of early adherents of general relativity. He had no illusions regarding the status of general relativity, for he knew perfectly well that it wasn’t the accepted theory.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.203]]<blockquote>
|Example Type=Hybrid
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Scientific Disagreement does not equate to Mosaic Split - Newtonianism
|Description=A quick example of ''mosaic split'' is formulated by Barseghyan (2015) as follows.
<blockquote>Take for instance the famous early 18th century case of Newtonianism in Britain vs. Cartesianism in France. If we were to go back to the 1730s we would spot at least two distinct scientific communities, with their distinct mosaics. While the curricula of the British universities included the Newtonian natural philosophy, the French universities taught the Cartesian natural philosophy among other things. In short, there is an instance of mosaic split if and only if there are two or more parties that take different theories to be accepted.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.203]]</blockquote>
Therefore, mosaic split is not synonymous with regular scientific disagreement.
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The definition became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
