Changes

|Prehistory=The pre-scientonomic history of synchronism versus asynchronism of method employment originates in the thought of [[Larry Laudan]]. In his critique of [[Thomas Kuhn’s Kuhn]]’s synchronicism of change in methods and theories, Laudan purports that change in method/methodology need not presuppose theory changes.<ref>http[[CiteRef:://www.iep.utm.edu/s-change/#SH3c</ref> Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]] For Laudan, anomalies can be addressed by methodological or ontological changes instead of theory modifications. Although for Kuhn “change is simultaneous rather than sequential,” Laudan provides many counterexamples depicting the opposite state of affairs.<ref>[[CiteRef::Laudan, L. (19861984a). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press, pg|p. 69</ref> ]] For instance, he cites the methodological shift in science from Bacon-Hume-Newton inductivism as evidence of asynchronism. The inductivism of the seventeenth century precluded the postulation of unobservable entities. However, between 1800 to 1860 acceptance of the existence of such entities became widespread, as evident in the writings of [[William Whewell|Whewell]], [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce]], [[Hermann von Helmholtz|Helmholtz]], [[Ernst Mach|Mach]], [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], [[Heinrich Hertz|Hertz]], and others.<ref>[[CiteRef::Laudan, L. (19861984a). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. University of California Press, pg|pp. 81-82.</ref> ]] According to Laudan, this methodological change across scientific domains cannot be linked to the theoretical revolutions of the time. This point evidences the independence of methodological change from the status of accepted theories. Furthermore, additional proponents of the asynchronism of method employment include [[Dudley Shapere]].