Difference between revisions of "Method"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
  
 
• 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)
 
• 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
 
|Related Topics=Theory, Scientific Mosaic
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 17:02, 29 August 2016

What is method? How should it be defined?

One of the tasks of scientonomy is to explain how methods change through time. Thus, a proper definition of method is in order.

In the scientonomic context, this term was first used by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The term is currently accepted by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is:

  • A set of criteria for theory evaluation.

Broader History

Prehistory here

Scientonomic History

The original definition of the term was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015.1

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this term (it includes all the instances when the term was accepted as a part of a community's taxonomy):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016That'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.Yes

All Theories

The following definitions of the term have been suggested:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Method (Barseghyan-2015)A set of requirements for employment in theory assessment.2015
Method (Barseghyan-2018)A set of criteria for theory evaluation.2018
If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following definitions of the term have been accepted:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyMethod (Barseghyan-2015)1 January 20161 September 2019
ScientonomyMethod (Barseghyan-2018)1 September 2019

Suggested Modifications

Here is a list of modifications concerning this term:
Modification Community Date Suggested Summary Verdict Verdict Rationale Date Assessed
Sciento-2018-0005 Scientonomy 8 October 2018 Accept the new definitions of method as a set of criteria for theory evaluation and methodology as a normative discipline that formulates the rules which ought to be employed in theory assessment. Accepted The consensus concerning this modification emerged primarily off-line, following a series of discussions. It was noted that the new definition "does clarify the scientific understanding of methods as normative theories that can be both accepted and employed".c1 It was also highlighted that the consensus on this modification "has been manifested on several occasions, including the first scientonomy conference in May 2019 in Toronto, where several of the speakers treated the suggested definition of method as accepted".c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the acceptance of "this definition will require a whole series of changes to other theories already accepted by the scientonomic community to accord with the new definitions, for example, the Methodology can shape Method theorem."c3 This raises an important workflow-related question: does this mean that the encyclopedia editors have the right to make the respective changes?c4 1 September 2019

Current Definition

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 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

•How do technological research tools relate to employed methods? Currently, according to the TSC, knowledge concerning technical tools takes the forms of accepted beliefs, 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)

• 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.

• The TSC currently states that the employment of a new concrete method cannot lead to the rejection of another employed method. However, it seems conceivable that method X might cease to be employed when a new method is employed which is thought to be more effective than X. Are there any examples of this happening in the history of science? (Mirka Loiselle, 2016)

• 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)

In Scientonomy, the accepted definition of the term is Method (Barseghyan-2018).

Method (Barseghyan-2018) states: "A set of criteria for theory evaluation."

Method (Barseghyan-2018).png

This definition of method is meant to encompass the criteria of evaluation of all types, regardless of their being explicit or implicit, and thus merge what was previously separated into two classes of elements - methods and methodologies.

Ontology

Existence

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted claims concerning the existence of Method.

Disjointness

In Scientonomy, no classes are currently accepted as disjoint with Method.

Subtypes

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted subtypes of Method.

Supertypes

In Scientonomy, the following supertype of Method is currently accepted:

Associations

In Scientonomy, there are currently no accepted associations of Method.

Epistemic Stances Towards Methods

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question can be summarized as follows:


If a question concerning the ontology of a method is missing, please add it here.

Dynamics

Mechanism of Scientific Inertia for Methods

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question can be summarized as follows:

  • An employed method remains employed unless replaced by other methods.
  • An element of the mosaic remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements.
  • An accepted theory remains accepted unless replaced by other theories.

Necessary Methods

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

  • In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.


If a question concerning the dynamics of a method is missing, please add it here.


Related Topics

This term is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.