editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Necessary Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 20:12, 6 November 2023
, 20:12, 6 November 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|TitleTopic=Necessary Mechanism of Mosaic Split theorum
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Necessary Mosaic Split theorem
|Alternate Titles=
|Title Formula=
|Text Formula=
|Formulation Text=When two mutually incompatible theories satisfy the requirements of the current method, the mosaic necessarily splits in two.
|Formulation FileObject=Necessary-mosaic-split-box-only.jpg|Topic=Mechanism of Mosaic Split
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Necessary-mosaic-split-box-only.jpg|Description=Necessary [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] split is a form of mosaic split that must happen if it is ever the case that two incompatible [[Theory|theories]] both become accepted under the employed [[Method|method]] of the time. Since the theories are incompatible, under the [[The Zeroth Law|zeroth law]], they cannot be accepted into the same mosaic, and a mosaic split must then occur, as a matter of logical necessity .[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 204-207]]The necessary mosaic split theorem is thus required to escape the contradiction entailed by the acceptance of two or more incompatible theories.[[File:Necessary-In a situation where this sort of contradiction obtains the mosaic-is splitand distinct communities are formed each of which bears its own mosaic, and each mosaic will include exactly one of the theories being assessed.jpgBy the [[The Third Law|center|500pxthird law]], each mosaic will also have a distinct method that precludes the acceptance of the other contender theory.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=Like the broader topic of the [[Mechanism of Mosaic Split]] the matter of possible mosaic split has classically been regarded as a case of divergent belief systems in communities that arises necessarily from a set of circumstances. Consequently the most directly relevant literature comes from the positivist era, though some relevant work was also done in the post-positivist era.
The most direct early source suggesting that there are circumstances in which communities necessarily obtain different beliefs about scientific subjects is the work of [[Karl Popper]], whose system of conjectures and refutations suggests that progress in science is obtained by challenging our currently accepted views by trying to refute them.[[CiteRef::Popper (1963)|p. 68]] It follows that if there are situations in which a community has two theories that are both resistant to refutation then both should be accepted. This model - whereby there is a definite algorithmically determined method for theory assessment - was dominant among positivist philosophers and would prevail until the historical turn, when a model more closely reminiscent of the [[Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|possible mosaic split theorem]] emerged.[[CiteRef::Laudan, Laudan, and Donovan (1988)|p. 5]]
|History=
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Necessary Mosaic Split: Formal Example
|Description=Suppose we have some community C' with mosaic M' and that this community assesses two theories, T<sub>1</sub> and T<sub>2</sub>, both of which satisfy M'. Let us further suppose that T<sub>1</sub> and T<sub>2</sub> both describe the same object and are incompatible with one another. According to the second law both T<sub>1</sub> and T<sub>2</sub> will be accepted because they both satisfy M', but both cannot simultaneously be accepted by C' due to the zeroth law. The necessary mosaic split theorem says that the result will be a new community C<sub>1</sub> which accepts T<sub>1</sub> and M<sub>1</sub>, which precludes their accepting T<sub>2</sub>. Simultaneously a new community C<sub>2</sub> will emerge which accepts T<sub>2</sub> and the resulting theory M<sub>2</sub>, which precludes their accepting T<sub>1</sub>.
Barseghyan (2015) neatly summarizes this series of events:
<blockquote> When two mutually incompatible theories simultaneously satisfy the implicit requirements of the scientific community, members of the community are basically in a position to pick either one. And given that any contender theory always has its champions (if only the authors), there will inevitably be two parties with their different preferences. As a result, the community must inevitably split in two.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 204]]<blockquote>
|Example Type=Hypothetical
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Necessary Mosaic Split: French and English Physics Communities
|Description=Barseghyan illustrates the necessary mosaic split theorem with the example of the French and English physics communities circa 1730, at which time the French accepted the Cartesian physics and the English accepted the Newtonian physics.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 203]] These communities would both initially accepted the Aristotelian-medieval physics due to their mutual acceptance of the Aristotelian-medieval mosaic until the start of the eighteenth century[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 210]] but clearly had different mosaics within a few decades. According to the second law both the Cartesian and Newtonian physics must have satisfied the methods of the Aristotelian-medieval mosaic in order to have been accepted, but since both shared the same object and posited radically different ontologies they were incompatible with one another and could not both be accepted, per the second law. The necessary result was that the unified Aristotelian-medieval community split and the resulting French and English communities emerged, each with a distinct mosaic.
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at the that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}