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 transition from the obvious answers, such as verisimilitude and best fit Aristotelian-Medieval method to the dataNewtonian world view as a scientific revolution, all come with philosophical problemsthis was not the case historically.  The difficulty scientific revolutions in the early twentieth century caused philosophers of science to wonder how science accepts its theories. In his [[Popper (1959)|''Logic of solving Scientific Discovery'']], [[Karl Popper]] argued that old theories are replaced by new theories when an old theory is falsified and a new theory is corroborated in by experimental evidence. This occurs when an experiment successfully tests a bold conjecture made by the problem was compounded new theory.[[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]]  A major development occurred when it was realized [[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 methods by which 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 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 accepted changes over timenot 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 more effort will be extended towards saving it by modifying the research program's auxiliary hypotheses. [[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]]

One historical example [[Paul Feyerabend]] argued in [[Feyerabend (1975a)|''Against Method'']] that the methods of theory acceptance was when heliocentrism replaced Ptolemaic Astronomychange over time in science, and that these changes are largely arbitrary. Another example was when the General Theory of Relativity replaced the Classical Mechanics initially developed by Isaac Newton[[Dudley Shapere]] agreed that scientific methods change over time.In [[Shapere (1980)|Parent Topic=Mechanism ''The Character of Scientific Change|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan'']],|Formulated Year=2015|Prehistory=This question has been one of Shapere argued that the scientific methods used at the central questions of time are affected by the classic philosophy of science. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say beliefs that no philosopher of science could bypass this issuethe scientific community holds. [[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]][[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]

Initially, philosophy held a static conception of science. [[Immanuel KantLarry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Kant_Laudan (17811984a)#_SCITEa80372857ad2020366e6129a3f86ebdc|believed''Science and Values'']] , Laudan argues that the axioms of Newtonian Mechanics were a priori synthetic propositionsmethods that scientific theories are accepted depend on the epistemic values that scientists hold. Philosophy believed in a static conception He recounted how knowledge of science because no scientific revolution had been experienced since experimenter's bias and the placebo effect led to the advent development of modern science. While Scientonomy recognizes the transition from the Aristotilian-Medieval double blind method in drug testing. Laudan's ideas are important precursors to the Newtonian world view as a scientific revolution, this was not the case historicallyScientonomy. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]

The scientific revolutions in In contrast, the early twentieth century caused philosophers strong program of science to being asking the question Sociology of how Scientific Knowledge (SSK), including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain science accepts its theoriesas a sociological phenomenon and sometimes stress the role played by non-empirical social values in scientific change. |History=The first answer original formulation of the second law was given proposed by [[Karl PopperHakob Barseghyan|Barseghyan]] in his [[Popper_Barseghyan (19592015)#_SCITEac2da6e3e07142716bdf470b23e6d6b0|Logic ''The Laws of Scientific DiscoveryChange'']]. Popper believed old theories replaced by new theories [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 129-132]] However, subsequent [[Scientonomy Seminar|seminar]] discussions revealed the law's two major flaws. First, it didn't clearly indicate what happened to a theory when an old a certain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Specifically, it didn't link theory is falsified and a new assessment outcomes to the theory is accepted in its place's acceptance or unacceptance. This occurs in Secondly, the law sounded like a crucial experiment that successfully tests tautology which is not what a bold conjecture made by the new theorygood law should sound like.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]

Consequently, in 2017, [[The next significant development occurred when Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation]] of the law was suggested by [[Paul Patton|Patton]], [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard]], and Barseghyan, which [[Thomas KuhnModification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted]] suggested in towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation.[[Kuhn_CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (19622017)#_SCITE15d65062633c419a100efae93b3ac85c|]] The Structure reformulated second law also clearly indicated the possibility of Scientific Revolutions[[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome]] that of theory changes are paradigm shiftsassessment, where as opposed to sneaking the world view idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the entire scientific community changesphenomenon of mosaic split. In his conception[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, the old and new theories are incommensurable.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