Changes

A {{Topic|Subject=Method Employment|Topic Type=Descriptive|Subfield=Dynamics|Inherited From=|Heritable=No|Question Text Formula=|Question Title Formula=|Question=How do [[Method|methodmethods]] become [[Norm Employment|employed]] is said by an epistemic agent?|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=When the classical philosophy of science finally came to be '''employed''' in a certain terms with the fact that [[Scientific MosaicMethod|mosaicmethods]] at of theory assessment do in fact change through time , the question became ''thow'' ifexactly they change. Since circa 1980, explaining the process of transitions from one employed method to the next has been one of the most challenging tasks for any theory of scientific change. A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of scientific change.|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan|Formulated Year=2015|Prehistory=A number of philosophers of science addressed the question of method employment before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], at time ''t''[[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Theory|theoriesDudley Shapere]] become , [[Theory Acceptance|acceptedLarry Laudan]] only when their acceptance is permitted by the method. It is currently accepted in , and [[Scientonomy|scientonomyErnan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the process world shape our methods of method employment is governed theory evaluation. [[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[The Third LawKuhn (1962a)|the third law ''Structure'']] as part of his conception of scientific changeparadigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]].

== History ==The notion of method employment has been part Similarly, in his [[Laudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']], [[Larry Laudan]] argued that the discovery of previously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the theory of scientific change since its first formulation in 2012. The first published definition of the term is in ''The Laws new methods of Scientific Change''drug testing.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Laudan (20151984a)|ppp. 5438-39]]

== Current View ==Methods, or criteria The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[Ernan McMullin]]. In his account of theory evaluationthe transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, can become part McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a scientific mosaic. When they do, they are said to be ''employed'' in theory assessment result of accepting that scientific mosaic. Thus a method the world is said to be '''employed''' more complex than it appears in a certain our observations.[[Scientific MosaicCiteRef::McMullin (1988)|mosaicpp. 32-34]] at time ''t'' if, at time ''t'', [[Theory|theories]] become [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] only when their acceptance is permitted by the method.

There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][File[CiteRef:Employed_Method_Definition:Lindberg (2007)|pp.png|center|424px37-38]]).

It is currently accepted in scientonomy [[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods become employed in accord with of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[The Third Law|the third law of scientific changeCiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::Barnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]].

[[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2017 it was Barseghyan's [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|original third law]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]] In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|resolved]] by [[Zoe Sebastien]]. Sebastien's [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|reformulation of the law]] made it explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet ''compatible'' with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]]. Sebastien's formulation became accepted in 2017.|Current View= Open Questions |Parent Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment|Related Topics= Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment* Questions here|Sorting Order=300|Page Status=Editor Approved|Editor Notes=|Order= 1|Related Articles Theories=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=January|Accepted From Day=1|Accepted From Approximate= No|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Third Law(Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.|Still Accepted=Yes[[Method]]|Accepted Until Era=|Accepted Until Year=[[Scientific Mosaic]] |Accepted Until Month=|Accepted Until Day=[[Static and Dynamic Methods]]|Accepted Until Approximate=No|Rejection Indicators={{#referencelist:}}