Changes

|Question=How should ''ought'' a scientonomic theory be ''assessed''? What conditions should ought it satisfy in order to become ''accepted''? What kinds of facts are ought to be relevant for assessing a scientonomic theory?

|Description=In many branches of contemporary science, theories are required to have confirmed novel predictions to become accepted. Should a scientonomic theory be assessed by its ability to make novel predictions? Alternatively, should it be assessed merely based on its ability to explain past episodes?|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,|Formulated Year=20172015|Prehistory=Previous thinkers on the subject, including Laudan, Popper, and Lakatos, considered theory assessment to be the purpose of methodology.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1987b)]][[CiteRef::Lakatos (1971a)]][[CiteRef::Nola and Sankey (2007)]] A proposed methodology could be used to determine the set of conditions or standards to be met for theory assessment. In turn, this raises the question, by which criteria can one assess a specified methodology? To solve this problem, philosophers proposed metamethodologies. For example, Laudan’s proposed normative naturalism assesses methodology by testing it against the historical record.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1987b)]] Alternatively, employing the hypothetico-deductive method for testing a methodological thesis can be considered a metamethodology.[[CiteRef::Nola and Sankey (2007)]] However, each of these approaches begs the question as to how we assess or accept one methamethodology over another. In order to avoid the inevitable infinite regress that results from this process, Lakatos proposed a self-referential approach, whereby a methodology is to be assessed by its own standards.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1971a)]] Although this closes the loop, Lakatos’ metamethodology risks introducing circularity into one’s reasoning. Assessment of a theory of scientific change offers some additional challenges to those outlined above. One issue is that, to previous philosophers concerned with theory assessment, determining the mechanism for scientific change is essentially the same as explicating the method of science. One implication is the conflating of the descriptive and normative questions of assessment. In the ensuing confusion, methodology and TSC become indistinguishable.|Related Topics=Indicators of Theory Acceptance, Indicators of Method Employment, Theory Acceptance, Possibility of Scientonomy, Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Bad Track Record, Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method, Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent, Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction, Mechanism of Theory Acceptance,|Page Status=Needs Editing}}{{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=The law 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 Approximate=No