Nature of Appraisal

What is the nature of theory appraisal? Does actual theory assessment concern an individual theory taken in isolation from other theories?

Theory appraisal refers to how we assess a theory to determine whether to accept it. From ancient times up until the mid-twentieth century, it was widely supposed that theories were appraised in isolation from one another; a position known as absolute appraisal. Once fallibilism became widely accepted, it was suggested instead that theory appraisal is a comparative matter, in which the relative merits of competing theories were assessed. Contextual appraisal contends that a theory is assessed only in relation to the entire mosaic of accepted theories and employed methods. For the historian, several elements must be considered in order to avoid committing anachronisms.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

• If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.

Broader History

Concepts pre-dating the current appreciation of contextual appraisal include epistemological concerns about the absolute appraisal of individual theories based on their available data. Early rationalist and empiricist philosophers believed in what has been called the justificationist interpretation of absolute appraisal which states that there could be decisive proofs and refutations of individual theories.

Later, probabilist interpretations were proposed stating that one cannot decisively prove a theory, but merely objectively measure its probability relative to the available evidence. This probabilistic tradition has been common amongst philosophers of science at both Cambridge and by the logical positivist tradition in Vienna. Both interpretations of absolute appraisal share the opinion that theory assessment concerns an individual theory taken in isolation from other theories. For instance, the logical positivists believed that scientific theories were entirely driven by fitting empirical data into logical structures.

In contrast, the comparative interpretation states that theory assessment does not concern individual theories considered in isolation. The shift towards the comparative interpretations of theory appraise began with the acceptance of fallibilism in epistemology. Fallibilism is the idea that no empirical belief can ever be rationally supported or justified in a conclusive way. Determining which theory is the best available required that extant competitors be appraised by their relative merit through a comparative appraisal process.

Among the first to philosophers of science to appreciate comparative appraisal was Karl Popper. In his conception of theory appraisal, a proposed theory was judged against an accepted theory on the basis of a crucial experiment. In a crucial experiment, the predictions of the old and new theory contradict each other. One of the theories will be falsified. The other will become the new accepted theory. 1

According to Thomas Kuhn, theories are assessed by the methods of the existing paradigm in periods of normal science. In a revolutionary period, the paradigm shifts and theories are assessed by the methods of the new paradigm. According to Kuhn, a scientific paradigm is the collection of accepted scientific theories. 2pp. 81, 84-87 Kuhn was among the first to recognize that observational anomalies are not exceptional and do not automatically lead to theory rejection.

Imre Lakatos recognized that there is always "an ocean of anomalies" but these only become significant when a new theory makes a novel prediction. 3pp. 111, 126-128

The later Larry Laudan agreed with the concept of comparative appraisal. 4 In his reticulated model of science, theory choice is determined by the methods employed at the time. The methods in turn are determined by the accepted theories. Lakatos is an important precursor to modern scientonomy.

The traditional comparative procedure of theory appraisal only accounts for two competing theories, some method of assessment, and some relative evidence. What the traditional version of comparativism does not take into account is that all theory assessment takes place within a specific historical context.

Scientonomic History

Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan have proposed a modified Second Law of Scientific Change that significantly modifies they way scientonomy believes scientific theories are appraised. They feel that their new Second Law better accommodates the possibility of an inconclusive result in the appraisal of a theory. 5 Their modified version of the Second Law has not been accepted yet by the scientonomy community.

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 January 2016	That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.	Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:

Theory	Formulation	Formulated In
Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	Theory assessment is an assessment of a proposed modification of the mosaic by the method employed at the time.	2015

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:

Community	Theory	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015)	1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).

Mechanism of Theory Acceptance

The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted."

According to this formulation of the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.

Unlike the previous formulation of the second law, this formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. In particular, it specifies what happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when a certain assessment outcome obtains.

In addition, this new formulation is clearly not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.