43
edits
Changes
Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Nothing Permanent (view source)
Revision as of 06:48, 30 November 2018
, 06:48, 30 November 2018no edit summary
|Question=How can scientonomy be possible if there are no permanent features of science?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=The Argument from Nothing Permanent can be summarized as follows: (1) In order for there to be a general theory of scientific change, science should at least have some permanent (fixed, static, unchangeable, transhistorical) features. (2) The Nothing Permanent thesis: Science doesn't have any permanent features. (Conclusion) Particularism: There can be no general theory of scientific change.
[[File:Argument from Nothing Permanent.png|300px]]
If science does not have any permanent features, it seems that any general theory of scientific change will be impossible as there will be no transhistorical regularities of science. So, if the Argument from Nothing Permanent is correct, then the study of scientific change reduces to particularism with no overarching order and science will only be able to be studied in episodes rather than as a whole.
It is important to distinguish between the Argument of Nothing Permanent, [[Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changability of Scientific Method|The Argument of Changeability of Scientific Method]], and [[Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction|The Argument from Social Construction]]. The Argument of Changeability of Scientific Method argues against the possibility of a general theory of scientific change on the basis that methods are non-permanent, however the Argument from Nothing Permanent not only encompasses methods being transient, but all features of science being transient. What the Argument from Social Construction attempts to say is that there is a certain sociological relativism in science and any permanent features of science are in the social mechanisms that govern the scientific process; i.e. any general theory of scientific change is sociological in nature. The Argument from Nothing Permanent on the other hand excludes there being permanent sociological features in science as well and thus the Argument from Social Construction is a possible response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent.
|Parent Topic=Possibility of Scientonomy
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,