Difference between revisions of "Individual Level"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | ||
|Formulated Year=2015 | |Formulated Year=2015 | ||
| − | |Prehistory=Throughout the history, many figures have come up with different beliefs regarding the individual level and the way this level affects the scientific mosaic. Locke and Hume stated that in order for an individual to have certain beliefs, he has to find them in his own experiments. | + | |Prehistory=Throughout the history, many figures have come up with different beliefs regarding the individual level and the way this level affects the scientific mosaic. Locke and Hume stated that in order for an individual to have certain beliefs, he has to find them in his own experiments.[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)|p. 4]] A good example of this is Galileo. Finocchiaro reveals certain letters of Galileo’s and extracts information about Galileo’s beliefs towards Copernicism, in order to figure out how Galileo dealt with the problem of appraisal. From his research written in his book, we are told that Galileo initially only partly pursued the Copernicus theory. Prior to his discovery of the telescope, and even after this, Galileo has been in contact with many important figures of the time, such as Kepler. Once the telescope was discovered, Galileo began accepting the Copernican theory. Part of this was because the Copernican theory proved his assumptions to be empirically true and his theories could be used to solve problems. And thus, Finocchiaro emphasizes how Galileo’s beliefs resulted in an alternation of the mosaic, which indicates that changes in the mosaic can be triggered by the individual level, and not only by a scientific community. <ref>[[CiteRef::Donovan, Laudan,and Laudan (Eds.) (1988)lp. 18] ] </ref> Feyerband also expressed an interested in Galileo is his 1993 book. In his writings, Feyerband states that Galileo replaces natural interpretations that are inconsistent with Copernican theories. According to him, Galileo never wanted to get rid of all the natural interpretations, but instead he wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerband tells us that Galileo believes there should be an ‘argument from observation’ because one should be able to explain and justify what has occurred in his results, and not only give ad hoc explanations. During the time Galileo proposed these arguments, the main method was the Aristotelian method, and therefore these arguments were contradicting the current accepted views. According to Feyerband, this gave Galileo trouble with the church. The key feature here is that despite church’s efforts to prevent these arguments from happening, Galileo succeeded at implying them in the mosaic, and thus proves once more that we can govern changes at the individual level. <ref>[[CiteRef::Feyerband (1993)lpp. 77-147]]</ref> |
Other figures in the scientific change do not necessarily focus on individuals, but instead they theorize certain mechanisms which can apply to the individual level. One such example is pluralism, which is defined as ‘ a degree of sociality describing scientific epistemology, and which embraces the variety of approaches individuals take in science’. Mitchell’s 2002 and 2009 articles embrace this concept. He argues that in order to fulfill the goal of the scientific change, one should not focus on a unifying theory, but instead focus on the multiple theories from individual scientists. These theories can be seen as different perspectives of the same occurring phenomenon, and thus can provide different answers about a problem. Giere’s 2006 paper supports Mitchell’s point in a color vision metaphor. Giere states that as people view the world through different eyes, and thus different perspectives, scientists perceive the world around us differently as well. This is helpful because it allows us to understand the world from different angles, and thus provides us with more answers. <ref>[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lpp. 16-17]]</ref>. | Other figures in the scientific change do not necessarily focus on individuals, but instead they theorize certain mechanisms which can apply to the individual level. One such example is pluralism, which is defined as ‘ a degree of sociality describing scientific epistemology, and which embraces the variety of approaches individuals take in science’. Mitchell’s 2002 and 2009 articles embrace this concept. He argues that in order to fulfill the goal of the scientific change, one should not focus on a unifying theory, but instead focus on the multiple theories from individual scientists. These theories can be seen as different perspectives of the same occurring phenomenon, and thus can provide different answers about a problem. Giere’s 2006 paper supports Mitchell’s point in a color vision metaphor. Giere states that as people view the world through different eyes, and thus different perspectives, scientists perceive the world around us differently as well. This is helpful because it allows us to understand the world from different angles, and thus provides us with more answers. <ref>[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lpp. 16-17]]</ref>. | ||
Lastly, Alexander Bird argues in his 2010 paper that cognitive labor is a representation of the individual level. In his paper, Bird mentions how the scientific knowledge that a community has comes from the individual scientists, and therefore emphasizes the collectiveness of knowledge. He argues that knowledge comes from the individual’s perspectives and reasoning, and it results in what we call a community. <ref>[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lp. 18]]</ref>]. | Lastly, Alexander Bird argues in his 2010 paper that cognitive labor is a representation of the individual level. In his paper, Bird mentions how the scientific knowledge that a community has comes from the individual scientists, and therefore emphasizes the collectiveness of knowledge. He argues that knowledge comes from the individual’s perspectives and reasoning, and it results in what we call a community. <ref>[[CiteRef::Longino (2016a)lp. 18]]</ref>]. | ||
|Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Theory of Scientific Change, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Method Employment, Theory Acceptance, Social Level, | |Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Theory of Scientific Change, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Method Employment, Theory Acceptance, Social Level, | ||
| + | |Page Status=Needs Editing | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
Revision as of 04:50, 3 December 2018
What is individual level? How should it be defined?
Individual level is one of the key concepts in current scientonomy. Thus, its proper definition is of great importance. When analyzing the role of the individual level throughout the scientific change it is important to look at individual figures throughout the history of science. A lot of the times their views affected in a way the scientific mosaic of the time and their work allows us to understand the possible cause of the shift in methods and theories.
In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:
- The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.
Contents
Broader History
Throughout the history, many figures have come up with different beliefs regarding the individual level and the way this level affects the scientific mosaic. Locke and Hume stated that in order for an individual to have certain beliefs, he has to find them in his own experiments.1p. 4 A good example of this is Galileo. Finocchiaro reveals certain letters of Galileo’s and extracts information about Galileo’s beliefs towards Copernicism, in order to figure out how Galileo dealt with the problem of appraisal. From his research written in his book, we are told that Galileo initially only partly pursued the Copernicus theory. Prior to his discovery of the telescope, and even after this, Galileo has been in contact with many important figures of the time, such as Kepler. Once the telescope was discovered, Galileo began accepting the Copernican theory. Part of this was because the Copernican theory proved his assumptions to be empirically true and his theories could be used to solve problems. And thus, Finocchiaro emphasizes how Galileo’s beliefs resulted in an alternation of the mosaic, which indicates that changes in the mosaic can be triggered by the individual level, and not only by a scientific community. [1] Feyerband also expressed an interested in Galileo is his 1993 book. In his writings, Feyerband states that Galileo replaces natural interpretations that are inconsistent with Copernican theories. According to him, Galileo never wanted to get rid of all the natural interpretations, but instead he wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerband tells us that Galileo believes there should be an ‘argument from observation’ because one should be able to explain and justify what has occurred in his results, and not only give ad hoc explanations. During the time Galileo proposed these arguments, the main method was the Aristotelian method, and therefore these arguments were contradicting the current accepted views. According to Feyerband, this gave Galileo trouble with the church. The key feature here is that despite church’s efforts to prevent these arguments from happening, Galileo succeeded at implying them in the mosaic, and thus proves once more that we can govern changes at the individual level. [2] Other figures in the scientific change do not necessarily focus on individuals, but instead they theorize certain mechanisms which can apply to the individual level. One such example is pluralism, which is defined as ‘ a degree of sociality describing scientific epistemology, and which embraces the variety of approaches individuals take in science’. Mitchell’s 2002 and 2009 articles embrace this concept. He argues that in order to fulfill the goal of the scientific change, one should not focus on a unifying theory, but instead focus on the multiple theories from individual scientists. These theories can be seen as different perspectives of the same occurring phenomenon, and thus can provide different answers about a problem. Giere’s 2006 paper supports Mitchell’s point in a color vision metaphor. Giere states that as people view the world through different eyes, and thus different perspectives, scientists perceive the world around us differently as well. This is helpful because it allows us to understand the world from different angles, and thus provides us with more answers. [3]. Lastly, Alexander Bird argues in his 2010 paper that cognitive labor is a representation of the individual level. In his paper, Bird mentions how the scientific knowledge that a community has comes from the individual scientists, and therefore emphasizes the collectiveness of knowledge. He argues that knowledge comes from the individual’s perspectives and reasoning, and it results in what we call a community. [4]].
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | Yes |
All Theories
| Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015) | The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment. | 2015 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
| Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 |
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015).
Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015) states: "The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment."
By the individual level Barseghyan means an "individual scientist who has her own set of ideas and beliefs about the world, and employs certain methods which might be different than the accepted methods of the time".2p. 43
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Scientific Mosaic.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
