Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
no edit summary
{{Topic
|QuestionSubject=How do theories become ''accepted'' into a mosaic?Theory Acceptance
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|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. It is clear that epistemic agents replaces their theories with theories that they considers superior, and they do this on a regular basis. Thus, the question is ''how'' epistemic agents accept theories.
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=This question has been one of the central topics of the philosophy of science. Initially, 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 no scientific revolution had been experienced since the advent of modern science. While Scientonomy recognizes the transition from the Aristotelian-Medieval method to the Newtonian world view as a scientific revolution, this was not the case historically.
[[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)| ''The Character of Scientific Change'']], 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)]]
[[Larry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Laudan (1984a)|''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 experimenters experimenter's bias and the placebo effect led to the development of the double blind method in drug testing. Laudan's ideas are important precursors to Scientonomy.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]
In contrast, the strong program of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain science as 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 [[Hakob Barseghyan |Barseghyan]] in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']].[[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 a certain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Specifically, it didn't link theory assessment outcomes to the theory's acceptance or unacceptance. Secondly, the law sounded like a tautology which is not what a good law should sound like.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]
Consequently, in 2017, [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|a new formulation ]] of the law was suggested by [[Paul Patton|Patton]], [[Nicholas Overgaard|Overgaard ]], and Barseghyan, which [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted ]] towards the end of that year and, thus, replaced replacing the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated Second Law second law also clearly indicated the possibility of [[Theory Assessment Outcomes (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|an inconclusive outcome ]] of theory assessment, 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
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2016
|Accepted From Month=January
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
