35
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Among many othersAccording to [[Thomas Kuhn]], comparative appraisal can be noted 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 work methods of philosophers the new paradigm. According to Kuhn, a scientific paradigm is the collection of science such as accepted scientific theories. [[Karl PopperCiteRef::Kuhn (1962)| pp. 81, 84-87]], Kuhn was among the first to recognize that observational anomalies are not exceptional and do not automatically lead to theory rejection. [[Thomas KuhnImre Lakatos]], recognized that there is always "an ocean of anomalies" but these only become significant when a new theory makes a novel prediction. [[Imre CiteRef::Lakatos(1971)| pp. 111, 126-128]], and The later [[Larry Laudan]]agreed with the concept of comparative appraisal. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1984)]] 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.
no edit summary
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. [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]]
|History=Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan have proposed a modified [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|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. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] Their modified version of the Second Law has not been accepted yet by the scientonomy community.
}}
