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
•How do technological research tools relate to employed methods? CurrentlyNevertheless, according to the TSCdistinction between the contexts of discovery and justification was challenged by the theory-ladenness of observation. Emphasis on the sociological, knowledge concerning technical tools takes institutional, material, and political variables within science grew, thanks to the forms work of accepted beliefspioneers like [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Imre Lakatos]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], of the kind “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”and [[Ernan McMullin]]. This in turn leads to They replaced the employment positivists’ rational image of telescopes as a method for examining celestial bodiesscience with historicism. HoweverSome sociologists went further, are there technological tools claiming that are used independently of any method? it was not methods but social ideologies or individual interactions/circumstances that primarily determined the beliefs that obtained to scientific knowledge (e.g., Latour and Woolgar (1979),[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]] (Paul Patton1986), 2016[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1986) One possibility might be the technique ]] Shapin and Schaffer (1985)[[CiteRef::Shapin and Schaffer (1985)]]). In addition, philosophers of brainstormingscience increasingly specialized on specific fields within science.[[CiteRef: we commonly use it as a research technique:Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]] Combined, but don’t seem to formulate it as these changes culminated in the abandonment of a methodgrand unifying scientific methodology. (Hakob BarseghyanFurthermore, by the 1980s philosophers of science concluded that theories and methods change and, moreover, 2016)theories shape methods.
• Can we apply But philosophers like Larry Laudan rejected the "accepted/used/pursued" distinction notion that change in science occurs all at once. Instead, he proposed that theories and methodologies can change at different times. Contemporary studies attempt to reconcile sociological and rationalist accounts of scientific knowledge and method to understand how methods? If sochange, this might help us especially in our analysis relation to theory acceptance.|History=The original definition of how normative propositions the term was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (especially ethical propositions2015) affect method employment. For example, a method deemed unethical may not be used, but still accepted as being effective for theory assessment.]]
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Question=What is '''method'''? How should it be ''defined''?
|Topic Type=Definitional
|Description=One of the tasks of scientonomy is to explain how methods change through time. Thus, a proper definition of ''method'' is in order.
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|AuthorPrehistory=Hakob BarseghyanIn classical philosophy of science,although theories and methods are closely bound up with one another, theories change but the scientific method does not. According to [[Paul Hoyningen-Huene|Prehistory=Prehistory here|History=The original definition Hoyningen-Huene]],[[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2008)]][[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2013)]] from the time of the Ancients until the second half of the term 20th century science just was proposed characterized by Barseghyan in 2015its method. [[Aristotle]] and his medieval successors identified science with absolute certainty guaranteed by axiomatic proof. In the Prior and Posterior Analytics as well as the Organon, Aristotle identified three determinants of scientific method: the aims of discovery/ordering/display of facts gained through passive observation, the nature of the knowledge pursued as well as the explanatory causes of that kind of knowledge, and a logical system to aid the proper arrangement of and inferences from observation.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]]In the West, these ideas were perpetuated and refined by medieval thinkers like [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], [[Robert Grosseteste]], [[Roger Bacon]], [[William of Ockham]], [[Andreas Vesalius]], and [[Giacomo Zabarella]]. They developed accounts of the acquisition of knowledge through observation and induction and rules for the justification and application of induction. Scholars from the East such as [[Al-Kindi]], [[Alhazen]], and [[Averroes]] were more critical of the Ancients. |Current View=CurrentlyThe Scientific Revolution of the 16th, 17th, '''method''' is defined as a set and 18th centuries involved serious reflection on the legitimacy of criteria for employment the methods that facilitated the rapid advancements in theory assessmentscientific knowledge at the time. Three different types Thinkers like [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Francis Bacon]] emphasized mathematical description and mechanical explanation as important constituents of criteria have been identified so fara disinterested method. [[Isaac Newton]]’s Opticks (1704)[[CiteRef::Newton (1704)]] and Principia Mathematica (1726)[[CiteRef:: criteria Newton (1999)]] also excluded non-epistemic values and subjectivity from scientific practice through his implicit method of demarcationexperiments and reasoning and his explicit methodological rules. Subsequent thinkers clarified and reinforced Newton’s approach, including [[Colin Maclaurin]], criteria of acceptance[[Denis Diderot]], and criteria [[Francesco Algarotti]]. However, some criticized the self-effacement of compatibilitythe scientist and inductivism. Methods should not be confused with openly professed These thinkers include the likes of [[Methodology|methodologiesGeorge Berkeley]](1734), which prescribe how [[CiteRef::Berkeley (1992)]] who challenged the Newtonian image of science ''ought'' , and [[David Hume]]’s attack on induction (1739).[[CiteRef::Hume (2000)]] A search for new foundations to be doneundergird the empirical method ensued in response to these critics. Methods should also be differentiated from research techniquesThe most notable example is [[Immanuel Kant]]’s (1781) reply to Hume in the Critique of Pure Reason.[[CiteRef::Kant (1781)]] Kant’s contributions generated additional debates on science and methods. In centre stage during the 19th century was [[John S. Mill]]’s inductivism versus [[William Whewell]]’s hypothetico-deductivism. For both thinkers, which are used in theory construction acceptance and data gatheringmethod employment remained closely bound up.== Open questions ==•There is currently an open question regarding But the status quantum revolution of technological knowledge in the mosaic20th century soon uprooted the security of commonsense intuitions, coaxing a renewed empiricism. From this emerged a methodological distinction by [[Hans Reichenbach]] (1938) between the contexts of discovery and whether they should be formulated as “accepted” or “useful” beliefsjustification. [[CiteRef::Reichenbach (Sean Cohmer1938)]] The literature focused on the latter, 2015)especially through such works as [[Rudolf Carnap]]’s logical positivism which attempted to axiomatize scientific theories.
|Related Topics=Theory, Scientific Mosaic
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{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=That's when the first scientonomic definition of the term, [[Method (Barseghyan-2015)]], became accepted, which is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
