Changes

|QuestionSubject=How do theories become ''accepted'' into a mosaic?Theory Acceptance

|Subfield=Dynamics|Inherited From=|Heritable=No|Question Text Formula=|Question Title Formula=|Question=How do [[Theory|theories]] become [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] into a mosaic?|Question 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=|Description=The question of theory acceptance is one of the central problems of theoretical [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. Any scientonomic theory should explain how theories become part of a mosaic. Initially, when philosophy had a static conception of science, this question did not exist. However, as science progressed, it soon became It is clear that science epistemic agents replaces its their theories with theories that it they considers superior, and it does they do this on a continuous regular basis. At this pointThus, the question is ''how science accepts '' epistemic agents accept theories became a .|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan|Formulated Year=2015|Prehistory=This question has been one of the central question for topics of the philosophy of science. Answering this question is not trivialInitially, philosophy held a static conception of science. [[Immanuel Kant]] believed that the axioms of Newtonian mechanics were ''a priori'' synthetic propositions. [[CiteRef::Kant (1781)]] Philosophers believed in a static conception of science because all no scientific revolution had been experienced since the advent of modern science. While Scientonomy recognizes the obvious answers, such as verisimilitude and best fit transition from the Aristotelian-Medieval method to the dataNewtonian world view as a scientific revolution, all come with philosophical problems. The difficulty of solving the problem this was compounded when it was realized that not the methods by which theories are accepted changes over timecase historically.

One historical example The scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century caused philosophers of science to wonder how science accepts its theories. In his [[Popper (1959)|''Logic of Scientific Discovery'']], [[Karl Popper]] argued that old theories are replaced by new theories when an old theory is falsified and a new theory acceptance was is corroborated in by experimental evidence. This occurs when heliocentrism replaced Ptolemaic Astronomyan experiment successfully tests a bold conjecture made by the new theory. Another example was [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]]  A major development occurred when [[Thomas Kuhn]] presented his groundbreaking analysis of scientific change in [[Kuhn (1962a)|''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] According to Kuhn, periods of 'normal science' are interrupted by 'scientific revolutions' that involve paradigm shifts. In a paradigm shift involves a fundamental change in world view for the General Theory relevant scientific communities. In his conception of theory change, the old and new theories are incommensurable.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]] While Kuhn's ideas stirred much controversy, they were generally recognized as highly important. In his [[Lakatos (1978a)|''Methodology of Relativity replaced Scientific Research Programs'']], [[Imre Lakatos]] advocated a less cataclysmic view of scientific change. In a refinement of Popper's views, he believed that theories are not necessarily falsified by failed predictions. Rather, a theory's fate depends on its centrality in an overarching research program. The more central a theory is to its research program, the Classical Mechanics initially developed more effort will be extended towards saving it by Isaac Newtonmodifying the research program's auxiliary hypotheses.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]] [[Paul Feyerabend]] argued in [[Feyerabend (1975a)|''Against Method'']] that the methods of theory acceptance change over time in science, and that these changes are largely arbitrary. [[Dudley Shapere]] agreed that scientific methods change over time. In [[Shapere (1980)|Parent Topic=Mechanism ''The Character of Scientific Change|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan'']],Shapere argued that the scientific methods used at the time are affected by the beliefs that the scientific community holds.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]][[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]|Formulated Year=2015[[Larry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Laudan (1984a)|Prehistory=This question has been one ''Science and Values'']], Laudan argues that the methods that scientific theories are accepted depend on the epistemic values that scientists hold. He recounted how knowledge of experimenter's bias and the central questions placebo effect led to the development of the classic philosophy of sciencedouble blind method in drug testing. It wouldnLaudan't be too much of an exaggeration s ideas are important precursors to say that no philosopher of science could bypass this issueScientonomy. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]

InitiallyIn contrast, philosophy held a static conception the strong program of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain scienceas a sociological phenomenon and sometimes stress the role played by non-empirical social values in scientific change. |History=The original formulation of the second law was proposed by [[Immanuel KantHakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] in [[Kant_Barseghyan (17812015)#_SCITEa80372857ad2020366e6129a3f86ebdc|believed''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] that .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] However, subsequent [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar]] discussions revealed the axioms of Newtonian Mechanics were law's two major flaws. First, it didn't clearly indicate what happened to a theory when a priori synthetic propositionscertain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Philosophy believed in a static conception of science because no scientific revolution had been experienced since Specifically, it didn't link theory assessment outcomes to the advent of modern sciencetheory's acceptance or unacceptance. While Scientonomy recognizes the transition from Secondly, the Aristotilian-Medieval method to the Newtonian world view as law sounded like a scientific revolution, this was tautology which is not the case historicallywhat a good law should sound like. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]

Consequently, in 2017, [[The scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century caused philosophers Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation]] of science to being asking the question of how science accepts its theories. The first answer law was given suggested by [[Karl PopperPaul Patton|Patton]] in his , [[Popper_(1959)#_SCITEac2da6e3e07142716bdf470b23e6d6b0Nicholas Overgaard|Logic of Scientific DiscoveryOvergaard]]. Popper believed old theories replaced by new theories when an old theory is falsified , and a new theory is Barseghyan, which [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted in its place]] towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation. This occurs in a crucial experiment that successfully tests a bold conjecture made by [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated second law also clearly indicated the new possibility of [[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome]] of theoryassessment, as opposed to sneaking the idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the phenomenon of mosaic split.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]|Current View=|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment,Mechanism of Theory Rejection|Sorting Order=200|Page Status=Editor Approved|Editor Notes=|Order=1}}{{YouTube Video|VideoID=mWciydFqP_E|VideoStartAt=1443|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Gregory Rupik|VideoEmbedSection=History

|Accepted From Era=CE