Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Conclusive Theory Assessment (view source)
Revision as of 12:16, 1 November 2022
, 12:16, 1 November 2022no edit summary
{{Topic
|Question=Are there really any actual historical instances of ''conclusive'' theory assessment or does every case of theory assessment involve some degree of ''inconclusiveness''?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=[[The Second Law|The second law]] specifies that, in order to become accepted, a theory is assessed by the method employed at the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] Barseghyan envisioned three possible distinct outcomes for theory assessment: accept, not accept, and inconclusive.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 199]] Are there really cases where the assessment of a theory is ''conclusive'', or is there always some degree of ''inconclusiveness'' involved? If there are necessary cases, is it possible for us as historians to show decisively that a theory assessment had a conclusive outcome, e.g. to show that it was accepted after having conclusively satisfied the requirements of the employed method rather than accepted after an assessment that involved some degree of inconclusiveness? We can ask the same question with regard to mosaic splits: are [[Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|necessary splits]] actually possible, or are all mosaic splits the result of inconclusive assessment? And if they are possible, can we ever as historians detect them?
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Theory AcceptanceAssessment Outcomes|Authors List=Paul Patton,
|Formulated Year=2016
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,
|Prehistory=The question of "conclusive" theory assessment is historically closely related to the the question of scientific underdetermination. In brief, scientific theories are underdetermined when several competing theories are able to adequately explain the same empirical phenomenon.
While the question of scientific underdeterminism is not identical to the question of conclusive theory assessment, the questions are related. If theory selection were a deterministic process, then there would be no possibility that any theory selection process could result in an inconclusive assessment. Only if theory selection were underdetermined by the empirical evidence, would an inconclusive theory assessment even be possible.
|History=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan have proposed a modified [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|Second Law]] of Scientific Change that they feel better accommodates the possibility of an inconclusive theory assessment and better explains how mosaic splits occur. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] Their modified version |Current View=|Page Status=Needs Editing|Editor Notes=This is a cocktail from several questions. One about the existence of the conclusive assessment. Second Law has not been accepted yet by about the scientonomy communityindicators of conclusive assessment. TODO: it needs to be unpacked.|Page StatusOrder=1|Lower Order Elements=Editor Approved
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}