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
m
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance (view source)
Revision as of 13:45, 8 September 2019
, 13:45, 8 September 2019no edit summary
|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, 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)]]
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment,
|Page Status=Editor Approved
