Changes

|Description=The Argument from Social Construction undermines the possibility of theory of scientific change. If it can be shown that science is a social construct, then it follows that there can be no general theory of scientific change. The meanings of “science” and “social construct” can be construed in various ways, which determine the line of reasoning that follows [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 90]]. However, ultimately, the fundamental idea to this challenge is that not only is the scientific practice a social activity in one way or another but the entirety of scientific mosaic is a product of social construction[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 90]]. Therefore, if Science science is driven by social factors such as politics, economics, cultures etc. that define the particular contexts wherein the scientific practice is conducted, then it follows that if the social factors were to be different in the past then Science could develop in ways that we cannot comprehend. For instance, we can conceive of an alternative history whereby the Newtonian corpuscular theory of light is replaced by a quantum theory rather than going through the intermediary stage of Fresnel’s wave theory[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 91]]. As a result, we cannot devise a general pattern or law that defines the changes that science undergoes because we cannot infer from the past what the social factors will be in the future and so the mosaic evolves in ways that is unpredictable. As such, the argument from social construction concludes that there is no general theory of scientific change. For example, the infamous case of Lysenkoism shows that the theories accepted by the scientific community in Soviet Union in 1940 was determined by the government. Genetics was labelled as a bourgeoise pseudo-science and Lamarckism was accepted instead. So, it can be seen that the social factors, namely, politics, determined the theory that came to be accepted by the scientific community[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 239]]. In the scientonomic context, a general of scientific change is not possible if science is a social construct[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 89]].