|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Topic
| + | #REDIRECT [[Subtypes of Epistemic Element]] |
| − | |Question=What is the '''ontology''' of scientific change? What are the fundamental ''elements'' that undergo scientific change?
| |
| − | |Topic Type=Descriptive
| |
| − | |Description=In principle, the process of scientific change can concern many different types of entities. One important question is to establish the most fundamental units that undergo scientific change. Over the years, it has been argued that the fundamental units of scientific change include theories ([[Karl Popper|Popper]]), paradigms ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]]), research programmes ([[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]]), research traditions (early [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]), methods ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], [[Dudley Shapere|Shapere]], later [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]), and values ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], later [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]). This is not surprising, as any theory of scientific change needs to establish a basic ontology of scientific change.
| |
| − | |Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change
| |
| − | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
| |
| − | |Formulated Year=2015
| |
| − | |Prehistory=[[Thomas Kuhn]]'s theory of scientific change identified the ontological units of scientific change as frameworks which he referred to as ''paradigms'', which can be defined as a characteristic set of beliefs and preconceptions held by a scientific community including instrumental, theoretical, and metaphysical commitments all together.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]][[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|pp. 293-319]] Kuhn himself confessed that he had confusingly used the term in several different senses.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|pp. 293-294]] In an attempt to clarify matters he sought to replace his broadest definition of the paradigm, given above, with the concept of ''disciplinary matrices'', defined as those shared elements that account for the relatively unproblematic professional communication and relative unanimity of professional judgment within a scientific community.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|p. 297]] For Kuhn, then, a theory of scientific change ought to deal with disciplinary matrices and their changes over time. While for Kuhn, paradigms or disciplinary matrices were primary, there was likewise confusion about the different stances a community might take towards a theory. Kuhn used a number of equally vague words, including ''universally received'', ''embraced'', ''acknowledged'', and ''committed'' to describe the status of theories within scientific communities.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|pp. 10-13]]
| |
| − | NOTE- This is only partial for now
| |
| − | |History=Initially, the ontology of scientific change was posited in the ''Metatheory'' of ''[[Barseghyan (2015)|the LSC]]'' through the ''[[:Category:Definitional Topic|definition]]'' of [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] as a set of all accepted theories and employed methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 5]] Towards the end of 2016, it gradually became clear that the ontology of a field cannot and should not be postulated via definitions. What constitutes the elements of a certain ontology is for the respective empirical research to be established and, thus, is not a matter of definitions. In other words, the question of what constitutes the ontology of a certain field is a ''[[:Category:Descriptive Topic|descriptive question]]'', not definitional. Indeed, what sort of elements change during the process of scientific change is not something that should be decided by a definition, but should be formulated as a descriptive theory that says "Such-and-such elements undergo scientific change".
| |
| − | |Related Topics=Mechanism of Scientific Change,
| |
| − | |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 question was tacitly accepted even before its explicit formulation in 2017. Thus, it has the same acceptance date as the rest of the original TSC.
| |
| − | |Still Accepted=Yes
| |
| − | |Accepted Until Approximate=No
| |
| − | }}
| |
