editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram fileResource=Possible-Barseghyan (2015)|Prehistory=Like the broader topic of the [[Mechanism of Mosaic Split]] the matter of possible mosaicsplit has classically been regarded as a case of divergent belief systems in communities, with the caveat that the divergence in the community is contingent, not necessary. As such pre-splitscientonomic approaches are those that are considerate of situations in which community beliefs ''may'' diverge but will not do so necessarily.jpg}}
As picturedThe obvious starting point for this sort of discussion is [[Thomas Kuhn]], for whom any case of scientific change is merely contingent owing to the nature of scientific revolutions.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|pp. 146-149]] In terms of the mechanism itself, Kuhn suggested that the possible mosaic split theorem follows as a deductive consequence actual process of theory choice ultimately comes down to the second and zeroth lawsdeliberation of values inherent to scientific endeavors, given a situation which together constitute the "shared basis for theory choice".[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|p. 103]] A divergence within the community implies a situation where conflict in the value-assessment that the community has undertaken when deliberating between two theories. In such cases the emergence of two distinct communities with two different sets of theories obtains an inconclusive resultarises due to the possibility of differing beliefs with regards to values. This will happen when These debates do not necessarily end in a division in the community, so it is unclear whether or clear that we are still within the domain of contingent divergence of belief. [[Larry Laudan]] would later take up a model similar to Kuhn's except that Laudan more clearly explicated the role of values within a hierarchy of scientific debate.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|ch. 2]] Laudan's proposal was that a community could experience divergence of belief and a split in the community any time there was a disagreement at any level in the hierarchy, though this is not a theory satisfies necessarily the case.[[Employed MethodCiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|p. 46]]|History=|Page Status=Editor Approved|Editor Notes=}}{{Theory Example|Title=Possible Mosaic Split: One Contender Theory|Description=Barseghyan's example of mosaic split which ''may'' result from ''one'' contender theory, proceeds as follows. <blockquote> Consider first the case with one contender theory. Suppose there is a scientific mosaic with its theories and methods and there is also a contender theory which becomes assessed by the currently employed method]] . If the assessment outcome is conclusive “accept”, the theory necessarily becomes accepted. If the outcome is conclusive “not accept”, the theory remains unaccepted. Both of these cases are quite straightforward. But what will happen if the outcome turns out to be inconclusive, i.e. if the assessment by the current method doesn’t provide a definitive prescription? When the assessment outcome is inconclusive, there are three possible courses of events. First, the new theory can remain unaccepted; in that case the mosaic will maintain its current state. Second, the new theory can also become accepted by the whole community; in that case a regular theory change will take place and the new theory will replace the old one. None of these two scenarios is particularly interesting here. However, there is also the third possible course of events. We When the outcome of theory assessment is inconclusive, members of the community are free to choose whichever of the two scenarios – they can easily imagine such accept the theory, but they can equally choose to leave it unaccepted. Naturally, there are no guarantees that all of them will necessarily choose the same course of action. It is quite conceivable that some will opt for accepting the new theory, whereas the rest will prefer to keep the old theory. In other words, when the assessment of a scenariocontender theory yields an inconclusive outcome, the mosaic may split in two.[[CiteRef:: suppose Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 204-205]]</blockquote> {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Assessment_outcomes_from_one_contender_resulting_in_mosaic_split.jpg}}|Example Type=Hypothetical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Drug Trial Methods and Possible Mosaic Split|Description=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.
Possible Mosaic Split theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 20:19, 6 November 2023
, 20:19, 6 November 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|Topic=Mechanism of Mosaic Split
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Possible Mosaic Split theorem
|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=When a theory assessment outcome is inconclusive, a mosaic split is possible.
|Formulation FileObject=Possible-mosaic-split-box-only.jpg|Topic=Mechanism of Mosaic Split
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Possible-mosaic-split-box-only.jpg
|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)|pp. 208-213]]
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 [[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.
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.
|ResourceExample Type=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, with the caveat that the divergence in the community is contingent, not necessary. As such pre-scientonomic approaches are those that are considerate of situations in which community beliefs ''may'' diverge but will not do so necessarily. The obvious starting point for this sort of discussion is [[Thomas Kuhn]], for whom any case of scientific change is merely contingent owing to the nature of scientific revolutions.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|pp. 146-149]] In terms of the mechanism itself, Kuhn suggested that the actual process of theory choice ultimately comes down to the deliberation of values inherent to scientific endeavors, which together constitute the "shared basis for theory choice".[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|p. 103]] A divergence within the community implies a conflict in the value-assessment that the community has undertaken when deliberating between two theories. In such cases the emergence of two distinct communities with two different sets of theories arises due to the possibility of differing beliefs with regards to values. These debates do not necessarily end in a division in the community, so it is clear that we are still within the domain of contingent divergence of belief. [[Larry Laudan]] would later take up a model similar to Kuhn's except that Laudan more clearly explicated the role of values within a hierarchy of scientific debate.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|ch. 2]] Laudan's proposal was that a community could experience divergence of belief and a split in the community any time there was a disagreement at any level in the hierarchy, though this is not necessarily the case.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|p. 46]]Hybrid
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at 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=
}}
