Difference between revisions of "Conclusive Theory Assessment"
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|Accepted From Day=1 | |Accepted From Day=1 | ||
|Accepted From Approximate=No | |Accepted From Approximate=No | ||
| − | |Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the | + | |Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. |
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 16:33, 16 February 2017
Are there really instances of conclusive theory assessment or does every case of theory assessment involve some degree of inconclusiveness?
The second law specifies that, in order to become accepted, a theory is assessed by the method employed at the time.1pp. 129-132 Barseghyan envisioned three possible distinct outcomes for theory assessment: accept, not accept, and inconclusive.1p. 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 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?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Paul Patton in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 April 2016 | It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016. | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).
Theory Assessment Outcomes
Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "The possible outcomes of theory assessment are satisfied, not satisfied, and inconclusive."
According to this ontology of theory assessment outcomes, when a theory is assessed by a method, one of the three following outcomes can obtain:1p. 199
- Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
- Not Satisfied: the theory is deemed to conclusively not meet the requirements of the method employed at the time.
- Inconclusive: it is unclear whether or not the requirements of the method employed at the time are met.
While the first two assessment outcomes are conclusive, the third outcome is inconclusive, as it permits more than one possible course of action. Thus, in this view, a theory's assessment outcome is not necessarily conclusive; an inconclusive outcome is also conceivable.
This ontology is assumed by the second law of scientific change as formulated by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan in 2017.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.
