Individual Level

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.

Broader History

Prior to the 20th century, epistemology of science has dealt primarily with how individuals produce knowledge.1p. 4Interest in levels of social knowledge has been increasing after the 20th century, and the issue of the individual level is became an important issue. Many philosophers of science 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 The famous Virginia Polytechnic Institute project (VPI) was an attempt to use empirical evidences to elucidate problems in the philosophy of science, and throughout the process they focused largely on individuals. An illustration of this is Finocchiaro revealing certain letters of Galileo’s and extracting information about Galileo’s beliefs towards Copernicanism, 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 accepted 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 focused on Galileo's belifs and what led him to change his beliefs in order to fit with the Copernican theory.2p. 18 Paul Feyerabend also focused on Galileo in his 1993 book, A method''. In his writings, Feyerabend believed there was no method of science, and thus used the study of Galileo in order to make his case. Galileo did not follow the supposed method of the time, but nonetheless was a successful individual.. According to Feyerebend, Galileo replaces the natural interpretations which are inconsistent with the Copernican theories, but does not get rid of all the natural interpretations. Instead Galileo wanted to keep only what was relevant. Feyerabend 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 accepted view was that things are true by nature, and thus his explanation contradicted these views. 3pp. 77-147 In his book, Barseghyan contradicts Feyerabend's belief that there is no such a thing as a method. Barseghyan explains that at the individual level, there is no method being employed, but instead the method is employed by the community. And thus, explains Barseghyan, that is the reason methods are not observed when studying specific individuals. 4p. 47

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.1pp. 16-17

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. 1p. 18

Lastly, the focus on the individual level is to help us give an answer to the following questions: What do we mean by individual level and what role do individuals play in scientific change? And how do we understand the role of the individual in relation with the social level?

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 January 2016		Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:

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

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:

Community	Theory	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015)	1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

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

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".4p. 43

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Scientific Mosaic.

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

• Mechanism of Scientific Change
• Scientific Mosaic
• Social Level