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
•In additionBut the quantum revolution of the 20th 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 justification.[[CiteRef::Reichenbach (1938)]] The literature focused on the latter, we can ask how technological research tools relate especially through such works as [[Rudolf Carnap]]’s logical positivism which attempted to employed methodsaxiomatize scientific theories. Nevertheless, the distinction between the contexts of discovery and justification was challenged by the theory-ladenness of observation. CurrentlyEmphasis on the sociological, institutional, material, and political variables within science grew, according thanks to the TSCwork of pioneers like [[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Imre Lakatos]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], knowledge concerning technical tools takes and [[Ernan McMullin]]. They replaced the forms positivists’ rational image of accepted science with historicism. Some sociologists went further, claiming that it was not methods but social ideologies or individual interactions/circumstances that primarily determined the beliefsthat obtained to scientific knowledge (e.g., 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 the kind “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”science increasingly specialized on specific fields within science. This [[CiteRef::Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]] Combined, these changes culminated in turn leads to the employment abandonment of telescopes as a method for examining celestial bodiesgrand unifying scientific methodology. Furthermore, by the 1980s philosophers of science concluded that theories and methods change and, moreover, theories shape methods. But philosophers like Larry Laudan rejected the notion that change in science occurs all at once. HoweverInstead, are there technological tools he proposed that are used independently theories and methodologies can change at different times. Contemporary studies attempt to reconcile sociological and rationalist accounts of any scientific knowledge and method? to understand how methods change, especially in relation to theory acceptance.|History=The original definition of the term was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (Paul Patton, 20162015) One possibility might be ]] When the technique ontology of brainstorming: we commonly use it as a research techniquescientific change was redrafted in 2019, but don’t seem to formulate it as the original definition was replaced by a method[[Method (Barseghyan-2018)|new definition]]. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (Hakob Barseghyan, 20162018)]]|Current View=|Related Topics=Scientific Mosaic, Theory|Page Status=Needs Editing|Editor Notes=}}{{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, Scientific Mosaicwhich is a indication that the topic itself is considered legitimate.|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Era=|Accepted Until Year=|Accepted Until Month=|Accepted Until Day=|Accepted Until Approximate=No|Rejection Indicators=
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Singular Capitalized=Method
|Plural Capitalized=Methods
|Singular Lowercase=method
|Plural Lowercase=methods
|Indefinite Article=a
|Question=What is '''method'''? How should it be ''defined''?
|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.
}}
