Changes

{{Topic|Subject=Method Employment|Topic Type=Descriptive Topic|Subfield=Dynamics|Inherited From=|Heritable=No|Question Text Formula=|Question Title Formula=|Question=How do ''[[Method|methods'' ]] become ''[[Norm Employment|employed'' ]] by a community in theory assessmentan epistemic agent?|Parent TopicQuestion Title=|Predicate=|Object Type=Text|Object Value True=|Object Value False=|Object Class=|Object Enum Values=|Object Regexp=|Single Answer Text Formula=|Multiple Answers Text Formula=|Answer Title Formula=Mechanism of Scientific Change|Description=When the classical philosophy of science finally came to terms with the fact that [[Method|methods ]] of theory assessment do in fact change through time, the question became ''how '' exactly they change. Since circa 1980, explaining the process of transitions from one employed method to the next has been one of the most challenging tasks for any theory of scientific change.A proper answer to this question helps to shed light on one of the key aspects of scientific change.|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan|Formulated Year=2015|Prehistory=A number of philosophers of science addressed the question of method employment before the inception of scientonomy. [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]] all suggested that our theories about the world shape our methods of theory evaluation. [[Thomas Kuhn]] can be credited by articulating this idea first in his [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'']] as part of his conception of paradigm shifts.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]]

A proper answer to this key question helps to understand [[Dudley Shapere]] greatly developed the mechanism idea of beliefs affecting methods of scientific change.|Year Formulated=2015|Author=Hakob Barseghyan|Prehistory=Prehistory heretheory evaluation in his [[Shapere (1980)|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by ''the third lawThe Character of Scientific Change''. Until 2016 it was the third law as formulated by [[Hakob Barseghyan]], where he argued that the criteria scientists employ in theory assessment are not transcendent to science but are an integral part of it.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Shapere (20151980)|p. 54]]

After the acceptance of Similarly, in his [[Zoe SebastienLaudan (1984a)|''Science and Values'']]'s , [[Modification:2016-001|suggested modificationLarry Laudan]] in 2016, the answer to argued that the question discovery of method employment is provided by Sebastienpreviously unaccounted effects (such as placebo effect or experimenter's bias) resulted in the formulation of the third lawnew methods of drug testing.|Current View=It is currently accepted in [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]] that the process of method employment is governed by [[The Third Law CiteRef::Laudan (Sebastien-20161984a)|the third law of scientific changepp. 38-39]]. It states that In its current formulation, the third law states that a method becomes employed when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.

The same idea has been expressed around the same time by [[FileErnan McMullin]]. In his account of the transition from the Aristotelian Medieval method to the hypothetico-deductive method in the early 18th century, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|pp. 32-34]]  There have been many other attempts at explaining how methods of theory evaluation come to be employed by a community (e.g. the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]][[CiteRef::Lindberg (2007)|pp. 37-38]]).  [[Barry Barnes]], [[David Bloor]], [[Bruno Latour]], [[Steve Woolgar]] and other have suggested that methods of science are determined to a large degree by the underlying sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]][[CiteRef::SebastienBarnes, Bloor, and Henry (1996)]] [[Paul Feyerabend]] went as far as to argue that in many cases methods are chosen in an arbitrary fashion.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]]|History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by [[The Third Law|the third law]]. Until 2017 it was Barseghyan's [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|original third law]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]] In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:Sciento-2016-001_The_Third_Law0001|resolved]] by [[Zoe Sebastien]].pngSebastien's [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|centerreformulation of the law]] made it explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet ''compatible'' with openly accepted [[Methodology|398pxmethodological dicta]]. Sebastien's formulation became accepted in 2017.|Current View=|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Norm Employment|Related Topics=Scientific ChangeMechanism of Theory Acceptance, Static and Dynamic MethodsRole of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment|Sorting Order=300|Page Status=Editor Approved|Editor Notes=|Order=1