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.
|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 became [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|became accepted]] towards the end of that year, thus, replacing the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated 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=
}}
