editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
•There is currently an open question regarding the status of technological knowledge in the mosaic, and whether they should be formulated as “accepted” or “useful” beliefs. (Sean Cohmer, 2015). •How do technological research tools relate to employed methods? Currently, according to the TSC, knowledge concerning technical tools takes the forms of accepted beliefs, of the kind for example: “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”. This in turn leads to the employment of telescopes as a method for examining celestial bodies. However, are there technological tools that are used independently of any method? Consider the telescope before is was known to be useful to astronomy(Paul Patton, 2016) One possibility might be the technique of brainstorming: we commonly use it as a research technique, but don’t seem to formulate it as a method. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)
no edit summary
|Current View=Currently, '''method''' is defined as a set of criteria for employment in theory assessment. Three different types of criteria have been identified so far: criteria of demarcation, criteria of acceptance, and criteria of compatibility. Methods should not be confused with openly professed [[Methodology|methodologies]], which prescribe how science ''ought'' to be done. Methods should also be differentiated from research techniques, which are used in theory construction and data gathering.
== Open questions ==
• Can we apply the "accepted/used/pursued" distinction to methods? If so, this might help us in our analysis of how normative propositions (especially ethical propositions) affect method employment. For example, a method deemed unethical may not be used, but still accepted as being effective for theory assessment.
• Scientists often seem to rely on practical propositions when conduction research— e.g “when conducting an experiment, chose the cheapest technique capable of producing acceptable results”. What is the status of practical propositions like these 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? (Hakob Barseghyan, Paul Patton, 2016)
• Although not explicitly stated by the TSC, it seems obvious that in order to become a contender for acceptance, a theory must meet the requirements of the demarcation criteria outlined by the employed method of the time. Given this, is it possible for employed methods to shape theory construction? In addition, it seems as though other elements of the mosaic play a part in shaping theory construction. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not have been built without prior acceptance of the formalism of Hilbert Spaces in mathematics. In what way does our mosaic impose constraints on theory construction? (Jennifer Whyte, 2016)
|Related Topics=Theory, Scientific Mosaic
}}
