editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 20:34, 3 February 2023
, 20:34, 3 February 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|Topic=Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Asynchronism of Method Employment
|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=The employment of new methods can ''be'' but is not ''necessarily'' a result of the acceptance of new theories.
|Formulation FileObject=Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015).png|Topic=Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Employment
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015).png
|Description=The theorem states that the employment of a method is not necessarily simultaneous with the acceptance of a new theory. Being a direct logical consequence of [[The Third Law|the third law]], the theorem highlights the fact that some methods are a result of the implementation of some abstract requirements of other methods. In this way, a new method can be devised as a means of resolving a particular creative gap, and subsequently become employed long after the acceptance of the theory that led to the employment of the abstract method.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|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 synchronicism of change in methods and theories, Laudan purports that change in method/methodology need not presuppose theory changes.[[CiteRef::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.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|p. 69]] 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.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 81-82]] 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]].
|History=
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=The Creative Gap
|Description=One key corollary of the third law is put forth in Barseghyan (2015). "Scientific change is not necessarily a ''synchronous process'': changes in theories are not necessarily simultaneous with changes in methods".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 150]]
<blockquote>Suppose a new theory becomes accepted and some new abstract constraints become imposed. In this case, we can say that the acceptance of a theory resulted in the employment of a new method and the employment of a new method was synchronous with the acceptance of a new theory. But we also know that there is the second scenario of method employment, where a method implements some abstract requirements of other employed methods. In this scenario, there is a certain creative gap between abstract requirements that follow directly from accepted theories and methods that implement these abstract requirements. Devising a new method that would implement abstract requirements takes a fair amount of ingenuity and, therefore, there are no guarantees that these abstract requirements will be immediately followed by a new concrete method. In short, changes in methods are not necessarily simultaneous with changes in theories.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 150-151]]</blockquote>
|Example Type=Hypothetical
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Counting Cells
|Description=Barseghyan presents a historical example showing that scientific change is not necessarily a ''synchronous'' process.
<blockquote> When it comes to acquiring data about such minute objects as molecules or living cells, the unaided human eye is virtually useless. This proposition yields, among other things, an abstract requirement that, when counting the number of cells, the resulting value is acceptable only if it is obtained with an “aided” eye. This abstract requirement has been implemented in a variety of different ways. First, there is the counting chamber method where the cells are placed in a counting chamber – a microscope slide with a special sink – and the number of cells is counted manually under a microscope. There is also the plating method where the cells are distributed on a plate with a growth medium and each cell gives rise to a single colony. The number of cells is then deduced from the number of colonies. In addition, there is the flow cytometry method where the cells are hit by a laser beam one by one and the number of cells is counted by means of detecting the light reflected by the cells. Finally, there is the spectrophotometry method where the number of cells is obtained by means of measuring the turbidity in a spectrophotometer.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 151-152]]</blockquote>
These are three different implementations of the ''same'' abstract requirement, which were, importantly, all devised and employed at different times.
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
