Changes

|QuestionSubject=How do theories become ''accepted'' into a mosaic?Theory Acceptance

|Subfield=Dynamics|Inherited From=|Heritable=No|Question Text Formula=|Question Title Formula=|Question=How do [[Theory|theories]] become [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] into a mosaic?|Question Title=|Predicate=|Object Type=Text|Object Value True=|Object Value False=|Object Class=|Object Enum Values=|Object Regexp=|Single Answer Text Formula=|Multiple Answers Text Formula=|Answer Title Formula=|Description=The question of theory acceptance is one of the central problems of theoretical [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. Any scientonomic theory should explain how theories become part of a mosaic.|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific ChangeIt is clear that epistemic agents replaces their theories with theories that they considers superior, and they do this on a regular basis. Thus, the question is ''how'' epistemic agents accept theories.|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,

|Prehistory=This question has been one of the central questions topics of the classic philosophy of science. It wouldnInitially, philosophy held a static conception of science. [[Immanuel Kant]] believed that the axioms of Newtonian mechanics were 't be too much 'a priori'' synthetic propositions. [[CiteRef::Kant (1781)]] Philosophers believed in a static conception of an exaggeration to say that science because no philosopher scientific revolution had been experienced since the advent of modern science could bypass . While Scientonomy recognizes the transition from the Aristotelian-Medieval method to the Newtonian world view as a scientific revolution, this issuewas not the case historically.

TODOThe scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century caused philosophers of science to wonder how science accepts its theories. In his [[Popper (1959)|''Logic of Scientific Discovery'']], [[Karl Popper]] argued that old theories are replaced by new theories when an old theory is falsified and a new theory is corroborated in by experimental evidence. This occurs when an experiment successfully tests a bold conjecture made by the new theory.[[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]]  A major development occurred when [[Thomas Kuhn]] presented his groundbreaking analysis of scientific change in [[Kuhn (1962a)|''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] According to Kuhn, periods of 'normal science' are interrupted by 'scientific revolutions' that involve paradigm shifts. In a paradigm shift involves a fundamental change in world view for the relevant scientific communities. In his conception of theory change, the old and new theories are incommensurable.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] While Kuhn's ideas stirred much controversy, they were generally recognized as highly important. In his [[Lakatos (1978a)|''Methodology of Scientific Research Programs'']], [[Imre Lakatos]] advocated a less cataclysmic view of scientific change. In a refinement of Popper's views, he believed that theories are not necessarily falsified by failed predictions. Rather, a theory's fate depends on its centrality in an overarching research program. The more central a theory is to its research program, the more effort will be extended towards saving it by modifying the research program's auxiliary hypotheses. [[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]] [[Paul Feyerabend]] argued in [[Feyerabend (1975a)|''Against Method'']] that the methods of theory acceptance change over time in science, and that these changes are largely arbitrary. [[Dudley Shapere]] agreed that scientific methods change over time. In [[Shapere (1980)| ''The Character of Scientific Change'']], Shapere argued that the scientific methods used at the time are affected by the beliefs that the scientific community holds.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]][[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]] [[Larry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], Laudan argues that the methods that scientific theories are accepted depend on the epistemic values that scientists hold. He recounted how knowledge of experimenter's bias and the placebo effect led to the development of the double blind method in drug testing. Laudan's ideas are important precursors to Scientonomy.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] In contrast, the strong program of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain science as a sociological phenomenon and sometimes stress the role played by non-empirical social values in scientific change.|History=The original formulation of the second law was proposed by [[Hakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']].[[CiteRef: Prehistory here:Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] However, subsequent [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar]] discussions revealed the law's two major flaws. First, it didn't clearly indicate what happened to a theory when a certain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Specifically, it didn't link theory assessment outcomes to the theory's acceptance or unacceptance. Secondly, the law sounded like a tautology which is not what a good law should sound like.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]  Consequently, in 2017, [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation]] of the law was suggested by [[Paul Patton|Patton]], [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard]], and Barseghyan, which [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted]] towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated second law also clearly indicated the possibility of [[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome]] of theory assessment, as opposed to sneaking the idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the phenomenon of mosaic split.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]|Current View=|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment,Mechanism of Theory Rejection|Sorting Order=200|Page Status=Editor Approved|Editor Notes=|Order=1}}{{YouTube Video|VideoID=mWciydFqP_E|VideoStartAt=1443|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik|VideoEmbedSection=History

|Accepted From Era=CE

|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that answers this question became accepted then. Thus, the question it attempts to answer can also be said to be accepted as a is itself considered legitimate topic for discussion.