Difference between revisions of "Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015)"
Paul Patton (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Theory |Title=Indicators of Method Employment |Theory Type=Descriptive |Formulation Text=The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessari...") |
Paul Patton (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Title=Indicators of Method Employment | |Title=Indicators of Method Employment | ||
|Theory Type=Descriptive | |Theory Type=Descriptive | ||
| − | |Formulation Text=The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence. | + | |Formulation Text=The ''employed method'' of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the ''methodological texts'' of that time and must be inferred from ''actual patterns'' of theory acceptance and other ''indirect evidence''. |
|Topic=Indicators of Method Employment | |Topic=Indicators of Method Employment | ||
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | ||
|Formulated Year=2015 | |Formulated Year=2015 | ||
| − | |Description=One putative method of learning the [[Employed Method|employed method]] of the time is by studying texts concerning scientific methodology to learn what method was prescribed by the community or advocated by great scientists. However, such indicators can yield incorrect results. During the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific community explicitly advocated the empiricist-inductivist methodology championed by | + | |Description=One putative method of learning the [[Employed Method|''employed method'']] of the time is by studying texts concerning scientific [[Methodology|''methodology'']] to learn what method was prescribed by the [[Scientific Community|community]] or advocated by ''great scientists''. However, such indicators can yield incorrect results. During the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific community explicitly advocated the ''empiricist-inductivist'' methodology championed by [[Isaac Newton]]. This methodology held that new theories should be deduced from phenomena, and that unobservable entities should not be posited. However, the historical record actually shows that several theories positing unobservable entities did, in fact, become accepted during this period. These include Benjamin Franklin's theory of electricity, which posited an unobservable ''electric fluid'', the ''phlogiston'' theory of combustion, and the theory that light is a waveform in a ''luminiferous ether''. Thus the ''accepted methodology'' [[Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit|does not necessarily indicate]] the ''employed method'' of the time. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 53-54]] |
| − | More promising indicators of method employment are indirect, via inference from historical facts about what theories are accepted, the process of appraisal, and the prior state of the mosaic. For example, one might note what sort of theories become accepted during a particular time period by some community and try to determine why. If theories become accepted after some novel prediction they make has been confirmed, then the employed method of the time was most likely hypothetico-deductive. On the other hand, if theories do not require confirmed novel predictions to become accepted, then some other method might be the one employed. The most suitable indirect indicators of method employment will vary from case to case with context and culture. | + | More promising indicators of method employment are ''indirect'', via inference from historical facts about what theories are accepted, the process of appraisal, and the prior state of the mosaic. For example, one might note what sort of theories become accepted during a particular time period by some community and try to determine why. If theories become accepted after some novel prediction they make has been confirmed, then the employed method of the time was most likely ''hypothetico-deductive''. On the other hand, if theories do not require confirmed novel predictions to become accepted, then some other method might be the one employed. The most suitable indirect indicators of method employment will vary from case to case with context and culture. |
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015) | |Resource=Barseghyan (2015) | ||
| − | |Page Status= | + | |Page Status=Needs Editing |
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
Latest revision as of 19:33, 25 July 2017
This is an answer to the question Indicators of Method Employment that states "The employed method of theory appraisal of a community at some time is not necessarily indicated by the methodological texts of that time and must be inferred from actual patterns of theory acceptance and other indirect evidence."
Indicators of Method Employment was formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015.1 It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | The theorem became de facto accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change. | Yes |
Question Answered
Indicators of Method Employment (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: What kind of historical markers could be taken as indicators that a method was employed by an agent at a given time?
See Indicators of Method Employment for more details.
Description
One putative method of learning the employed method of the time is by studying texts concerning scientific methodology to learn what method was prescribed by the community or advocated by great scientists. However, such indicators can yield incorrect results. During the second half of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, the scientific community explicitly advocated the empiricist-inductivist methodology championed by Isaac Newton. This methodology held that new theories should be deduced from phenomena, and that unobservable entities should not be posited. However, the historical record actually shows that several theories positing unobservable entities did, in fact, become accepted during this period. These include Benjamin Franklin's theory of electricity, which posited an unobservable electric fluid, the phlogiston theory of combustion, and the theory that light is a waveform in a luminiferous ether. Thus the accepted methodology does not necessarily indicate the employed method of the time. 1pp. 53-54
More promising indicators of method employment are indirect, via inference from historical facts about what theories are accepted, the process of appraisal, and the prior state of the mosaic. For example, one might note what sort of theories become accepted during a particular time period by some community and try to determine why. If theories become accepted after some novel prediction they make has been confirmed, then the employed method of the time was most likely hypothetico-deductive. On the other hand, if theories do not require confirmed novel predictions to become accepted, then some other method might be the one employed. The most suitable indirect indicators of method employment will vary from case to case with context and culture.
Reasons
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
