Difference between revisions of "Applicability of Scientonomy to Theories as Models"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Question=Is the theory of scientific change applicable to theories construed as sets of models, or in ways that reject their purely formal characterization?
 
|Question=Is the theory of scientific change applicable to theories construed as sets of models, or in ways that reject their purely formal characterization?
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
−
|Description=The theory of scientific change currently defines theories as sets of descriptive or normative propositions.  This definition is most closely aligned with the syntactical view of theories promulgated by logical empiricists early in the twentieth century.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] Two other competing views of the nature of scientific theories have since been proposed. The semantic view of theories holds that they should be seen as sets of models, as models were defined by Alfred Tarski. The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of theories and holds them to include sentences, models, problems, examples, skills, practices, analogies, and metaphors, some of which necessarily resist formalization.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]][[CiteRef::Mormann (2008)]] Is the theory of scientific change compatible with these more recent and broader views of theories?
+
|Description=The theory of scientific change currently defines theories as sets of descriptive or normative propositions.  This definition is most closely aligned with the syntactical view of theories promulgated by logical empiricists early in the twentieth century.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] Two other competing views of the nature of scientific theories have since been proposed. The semantic view of theories holds that they should be seen as sets of models, as models were defined by [[Alfred Tarski]]. The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of theories and holds them to include sentences, models, problems, examples, skills, practices, analogies, and metaphors, some of which necessarily resist formalization.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]][[CiteRef::Mormann (2008)]] Is the theory of scientific change compatible with these more recent and broader views of theories?
−
|Parent Topic=
+
|Parent Topic=Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change
 +
|Authors List=Markus Alliksaar,
 
|Formulated Year=2017
 
|Formulated Year=2017
 
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2017,
 
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2017,
−
|Prehistory=In modern times philosophers have held varied views about how best to express the structure and content of scientific theories and about whether or not they are wholly reducible to sets of propositions. [[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] A more complete discussion may be found in the definitional topic, [[Theory]].
+
|Prehistory=In modern times philosophers have held varied views about how best to express the structure and content of scientific theories and about whether or not they are wholly reducible to sets of propositions.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] For a more complete discussion, see [[Theory]].
−
|History=Scientonomy has, so far, accepted a definition of theories based the ability to state them as lists of propositions. In the original view of theories, proposed by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015, a theory was defined as a set of propositions that attempt to describe something. In early 2017 it was replaced by a definition proposed by Sebastian in 2016, which modified the definition to include both descriptive and normative propositions.
 
−
|Current View=The currently accepted definition of [[Theory|'theory']] accepts that all theories may be expressed as sets of propositions.
 
 
|Related Topics=Descriptive Theory, Normative Theory,
 
|Related Topics=Descriptive Theory, Normative Theory,
 +
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Acceptance Record
 
{{Acceptance Record
Line 18: Line 18:
 
|Accepted From Day=10
 
|Accepted From Day=10
 
|Accepted From Approximate=No
 
|Accepted From Approximate=No
−
|Acceptance Indicators=The topic was discussed at the Scientonomy Seminar, and identifies as an open question.
+
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2017]].
 
|Still Accepted=Yes
 
|Still Accepted=Yes
 
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
 
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 22:51, 9 July 2017

Is the theory of scientific change applicable to theories construed as sets of models, or in ways that reject their purely formal characterization?

The theory of scientific change currently defines theories as sets of descriptive or normative propositions. This definition is most closely aligned with the syntactical view of theories promulgated by logical empiricists early in the twentieth century.1 Two other competing views of the nature of scientific theories have since been proposed. The semantic view of theories holds that they should be seen as sets of models, as models were defined by Alfred Tarski. The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of theories and holds them to include sentences, models, problems, examples, skills, practices, analogies, and metaphors, some of which necessarily resist formalization.12 Is the theory of scientific change compatible with these more recent and broader views of theories?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Markus Alliksaar in 2017. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

Broader History

In modern times philosophers have held varied views about how best to express the structure and content of scientific theories and about whether or not they are wholly reducible to sets of propositions.1 For a more complete discussion, see Theory.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy10 March 2017It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2017.Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

There is currently no accepted answer to this question.


Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change.

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. a b c  Winther, Rasmus. (2016) The Structure of Scientific Theories. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/structure-scientific-theories/.
  2. ^  Mormann, Thomas. (2008) Idealization in Cassirer's Philosophy of Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 16 (2), 151-181.

Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=Applicability_of_Scientonomy_to_Theories_as_Models&oldid=12069"