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 Pursuit (view source)
Revision as of 17:21, 20 October 2022
, 17:21, 20 October 2022no edit summary
{{Topic
|Question=What is the mechanism of '''theory pursuit''', if any? How do theories become ''pursued'' by communities? Is pursuit purely determined by sociocultural factors or is there an epistemic element to it as well?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=The scope of scientonomy encompasses the process of [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], whereas the question of how theories become [[Theory Pursuit|pursued]] is currently not within the scope of theoretical scientonomy. However, in principle, it might be interesting to see if there is any logic to the process of theory pursuit. Theory pursuit is heavily influenced by sociocultural factors which can affect incentive structures and constrain the pursuit of various theories. However, is it solely determined by sociocultural factors or are there epistemological aspects to theory pursuit as well?|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=Among classical philosophers of science, there was no unanimity as to whether the question of theory pursuit can have a reasonable answer. For instance, [[Imre Lakatos]] can be interpreted as claiming that while one has to [[Theory Acceptance|accept]] the most progressive research programme, one can legitimately [[Theory Pursuit|pursue]] any research programme whatsoever.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1971a)|p. 117]] The latter part of the claim would be readily accepted by Paul Feyerabend.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1976a)|pp. 213-216]]
Lakatos divided research programs into two different categories: progressive and degenerating. Lakatos judged research programs on explanatory power and this looked at them in terms of whether modifications to their protective belt had been progressive or regressive. In short, progressive modifications fit into unity with the current research program with excess corroborated empirical content[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1970)|pp. 31-32]] while regressive modifications did not fit and had no corroborated empirical content.[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1970)|pp. 110-112]] Both progressive and degenerative programs could be pursued for Lakatos, however degenerative programs are irrational to pursue. It is worth knowing however, a program could at any point of time change from degenerative and become progressive again with a few progressive modifications. Feyerabend criticized Lakatos’ degenerating programs as having no set time limit on when to stop pursuing them. A program could become degenerative and stay this way for millions of years but to Lakatos it will always be available for pursuit. Feyerabend believed there had to be a sharp line as to where and when a program becomes not worth pursuing.[[CiteRef::Motterlini (Ed.) (1999)|p. 9]] In contrast to Lakatos’ understanding of the mechanisms of theory pursuit, Feyerabend believed that all theories are worth pursuing at all times, a much more anarchical view. However, there were other philosophers who thought that there ''can'' be rules telling us which theories are pursuit worthy. In his [[Laudan (19771977a)|''Progress and Its Problems'']], [[Larry Laudan]] devises a methodological rule indicating when it is rational to pursue a certain research tradition. According to Laudan, "''it is always rational to pursue any research tradition which has a higher rate of progress than its rivals''".[[CiteRef::Laudan (19771977a)|p. 111]] In another example, for Kuhn, a theory would become worth pursuit so long as it satisfied the method of the time and views.[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)|p 91-92]]
|History=In [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']], Barseghyan left the question of including the logic of pursuit into the scope of scientonomy open. According to Barseghyan, "we are neither restrained nor obliged to provide an account of pursuit in an actual TSC".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 41]]
|Current View=|Related Topics=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance,|Page Status=Needs Editing|Editor Notes=|Order=1|Lower Order Elements=}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=January|Accepted From Day=1|Accepted From Approximate=No|Acceptance Indicators=The question became ''de facto'' accepted by the community as legitimate at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Era=|Accepted Until Year=|Accepted Until Month=|Accepted Until Day=|Accepted Until Approximate=No|Rejection Indicators=
}}
