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
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance (view source)
Revision as of 18:14, 29 November 2017
, 18:14, 29 November 2017no edit summary
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=This was the original formulation of the second law proposed by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']]. [[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 have proposed (2017)]] Consequently, in 2017, a reformulation new formulation of the Second Law law was suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan, which became accepted towards the end of Theory Acceptancethat year and, thus, replaced the initial formulation. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] The reformulated Second Law allows for also clearly indicated the possibility an inconclusive outcome to of theory assessment. With an inconclusive outcome, theory acceptance, unacceptance or as opposed to sneaking the idea of inconclusiveness from the back door when dealing with the phenomenon of mosaic split are all possible. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment,
|Page Status=Editor Approved
