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? Currently, according to But the TSC, knowledge concerning technical tools takes the forms of accepted beliefs, quantum revolution of the kind “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”. This in turn leads to 20th century soon uprooted the employment security of telescopes as commonsense intuitions, coaxing a method for examining celestial bodiesrenewed empiricism. However, are there technological tools that are used independently of any method? From this emerged a methodological distinction by [[Hans Reichenbach]] (Paul Patton, 20161938) One possibility might be between the technique contexts of brainstormingdiscovery and justification.[[CiteRef:: we commonly use it Reichenbach (1938)]] The literature focused on the latter, especially through such works as a research technique, but don’t seem [[Rudolf Carnap]]’s logical positivism which attempted to formulate it as a methodaxiomatize scientific theories. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)
• Can we apply Nevertheless, the "accepted/used/pursued" distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification was challenged by the theory-ladenness of observation. Emphasis on the sociological, institutional, material, and political variables within science grew, thanks to the work of pioneers like [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Imre Lakatos]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], and [[Ernan McMullin]]. They replaced the positivists’ rational image of science with historicism. Some sociologists went further, claiming that it was not methods? If sobut social ideologies or individual interactions/circumstances that primarily determined the beliefs that obtained to scientific knowledge (e.g., this might help us in our analysis Latour and Woolgar (1979),[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1979)]] (1986),[[CiteRef::Latour and Woolgar (1986)]] Shapin and Schaffer (1985)[[CiteRef::Shapin and Schaffer (1985)]]). In addition, philosophers of how normative propositions science increasingly specialized on specific fields within science.[[CiteRef::Andersen and Hepburn (especially ethical propositions2015) affect method employment]] Combined, these changes culminated in the abandonment of a grand unifying scientific methodology. For exampleFurthermore, by the 1980s philosophers of science concluded that theories and methods change and, a method deemed unethical may not be usedmoreover, but still accepted as being effective for theory assessmenttheories shape methods.
• The TSC currently states But philosophers like Larry Laudan rejected the notion that the employment of a new concrete method cannot lead to the rejection of another employed methodchange in science occurs all at once. HoweverInstead, it seems conceivable he proposed that method X might cease theories and methodologies can change at different times. Contemporary studies attempt to be employed when a new reconcile sociological and rationalist accounts of scientific knowledge and method is employed which is thought to be more effective than X. Are there any examples of this happening understand how methods change, especially in the history of science? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016) • Scientists often seem relation to rely on practical propositions when conduction research— etheory acceptance.g “when conducting an experiment, chose the cheapest technique capable |History=The original definition of producing acceptable results”. What is the status of practical propositions like these term was proposed by Barseghyan in the mosaic? Are they normative theories, or a separate entity? How are they accepted into the mosaic, and how do they change through time? How do they affect other elements of the mosaic? Do they affect method employment? 2015.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (Hakob Barseghyan, Paul Patton, 20162015)]]
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 its method. [[Aristotle]] and his medieval successors identified science with absolute certainty guaranteed by Barseghyan in 2015axiomatic 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, criteria of acceptanceincluding [[Colin Maclaurin]], [[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'' to be done. Methods should also be differentiated from research techniques, which are used in theory construction and data gathering[[David Hume]]’s attack on induction (1739).[[CiteRef::Hume (2000)]]== Open questions == •There A search for new foundations to undergird the empirical method ensued in response to these critics. The most notable example is currently an open question regarding [[Immanuel Kant]]’s (1781) reply to Hume in the status Critique of technological knowledge in Pure Reason.[[CiteRef::Kant (1781)]] Kant’s contributions generated additional debates on science and methods. In centre stage during the mosaic19th century was [[John S. Mill]]’s inductivism versus [[William Whewell]]’s hypothetico-deductivism. For both thinkers, theory acceptance and whether they should be formulated as “accepted” or “useful” beliefs. (Sean Cohmer, 2015)method employment remained closely bound up.
|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
}}
