Difference between revisions of "Indicators of Theory Scientificity"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|Question=What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a theory was indeed considered scientific/unscientific by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?
 
|Question=What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a theory was indeed considered scientific/unscientific by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
 
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=It is unclear whether traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journal articles can be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place, because scientists may presumably may not keep track of those theories that are not those that are not scientific and those that are scientific but are unaccepted. Despite this quandary, it appears likely that we may find solid indicators of conclusive assessments, while it seems more difficult tp locate indicators of inconclusive assessments. In any case, these are important questions for observational scientonomists in historical investigations of the demarcation criteria.
+
|Description=It is unclear whether traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journal articles (which may normally be taken as evidence in evaluating whether an instance of acceptance took place) can be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place, because scientists may presumably may not keep track of those theories that are unscientific and those that are scientific but are unaccepted. Despite this quandary, it appears likely that we may find solid indicators of conclusive assessments, while it seems more difficult to locate indicators of inconclusive assessments. In the most fortuitous cases of the former, there may be publications by professional societies providing the "scientific opinion" about a theory's status. For the scientificity and acceptance of Lavoisoir's chemistry, the experimental evidence led the Académie des Sciences to conclude that "if we doubt of a truth established by experiments so simple and palpable, there would be nothing certain in natural philosophy".[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|p. 742]] For the case of inconclusive assessment, however, very detailed archival research alone would shed light on such cases, for most of them may never receive attention from the scientific community, thereby making it difficult to find evidence of their existence. In any case, these are important questions for observational scientonomists in historical investigations of the demarcation criteria.
 
|Authors List=Ameer Sarwar, Patrick Fraser,
 
|Authors List=Ameer Sarwar, Patrick Fraser,
 
|Formulated Year=2018
 
|Formulated Year=2018
 
|Page Status=Stub
 
|Page Status=Stub
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 01:00, 26 February 2019

What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? How can observational scientonomists establish that such-and-such a theory was indeed considered scientific/unscientific by a certain epistemic agent at a certain time?

It is unclear whether traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journal articles (which may normally be taken as evidence in evaluating whether an instance of acceptance took place) can be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place, because scientists may presumably may not keep track of those theories that are unscientific and those that are scientific but are unaccepted. Despite this quandary, it appears likely that we may find solid indicators of conclusive assessments, while it seems more difficult to locate indicators of inconclusive assessments. In the most fortuitous cases of the former, there may be publications by professional societies providing the "scientific opinion" about a theory's status. For the scientificity and acceptance of Lavoisoir's chemistry, the experimental evidence led the Académie des Sciences to conclude that "if we doubt of a truth established by experiments so simple and palpable, there would be nothing certain in natural philosophy".1p. 742 For the case of inconclusive assessment, however, very detailed archival research alone would shed light on such cases, for most of them may never receive attention from the scientific community, thereby making it difficult to find evidence of their existence. In any case, these are important questions for observational scientonomists in historical investigations of the demarcation criteria.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Patrick Fraser and Ameer Sarwar in 2018.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Our records state that this question has never been accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by any community.

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

There is currently no accepted answer to this question.


Related Topics

References

  1. ^  Wisniak, Jaime. (2004) Phlogiston: The rise and fall of a theory. Indian Journal of Chemical Technology 11 (5), 732-743. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/9538.