123
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 18:36, 8 March 2017
, 18:36, 8 March 2017no edit summary
|Formulated Year=2015
|Description=Possible [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] split is a form of mosaic split that can happen if it is ever the case that [[Theory|theory]] assessment reaches an inconclusive result. In this case, a mosaic split can, but need not necessarily, result. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 208-213]]
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Possible-mosaic-split.jpg}} As pictured, the possible mosaic split theorem follows as a deductive consequence of the second and zeroth laws, given a situation a situation where the assessment of two theories obtains an inconclusive result. This will happen when it is unclear whether or not a theory satisfies the [[Employed Method|employed method]] of the community. We can easily imagine such a scenario: suppose we have a method for assessing theories about the efficacy of new pharmaceuticals that says "accept that the pharmaceutical is effective only if a clinically significant result is obtained in a sufficient number of randomized controlled trials." The wording of the method is such that it requires a significant degree of judgement on the part of the community - what constitutes 'clinical significance' and a 'sufficient number' of trials will vary from person to person and by context. This introduces the possibility of mosaic split when it is unclear if two contender theories satisfy this requirement. Carrying on the above example, suppose two drugs are being tested for some condition C: drugs A and B. We'll call T<sub>1</sub> the theory that A is more effective than B at treating condition C and T<sub>2</sub> the theory that B is more effective than A at treating condition C. These two theories are not compatible, and so cannot both be elements of the mosaic according to the [[Zeroth Law|zeroth law]]. Suppose further that both are assessed by the method of the time, meaning that both are subject to double blind trials. In these trials drug A is clearly superior to drug B at inducing clinical remission, but drug B has fewer side effects and is still more effective than a placebo and has had more studies conducted. Even if we accept T<sub>1</sub> we may have reason to suspect that T<sub>2</sub> better satisfies the method. We can interpret this in two ways: by supposing that our assessment shows that we should accept T<sub>1</sub> and that our assessment is inconclusive about T<sub>2</sub> or by taking both assessments to be inconclusive. In the first case it is permissible according to the [[Second Law|second law]] to accept T<sub>1</sub> and to either accept or reject T<sub>2</sub>, and in the second case both may be accepted or rejected.{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Assessment_outcomes_from_two_contenders_resulting_in_mosaic_split.jpg}} Because any time an assessment outcome is [[Outcome Inconclusive|inconclusive]] we may either accept or reject the theory being assessed we always face the possibility that one subsection of the community will reject the theory and another subsection will accept it. In these cases the two communities now bear distinct mosaics and a mosaic split has occurred. However it is important to note that the ambiguity inherent in inconclusive assessments means that it is never entailed that there will be competing subsections of the community. A community may, in the face of an inconclusive assessment, collectively agree to accept or reject the theory being assessed. Thus, in cases with an inconclusive assessment mosaic split is possible but never necessarily entailed by the circumstances.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
}}
