editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 01:15, 6 December 2018
, 01:15, 6 December 2018no edit summary
|Prehistory=All previous responses to the Argument from Nothing Permanent seem to target the nothing permanent thesis: there are no permanent features in science.
One way to answer would be to say that there is a permanent method of science, the scientific method. This was implicit in the beliefs of philosophers of science from Whewell and Herschel up to about 1970.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1996)|p. 213]] However, it is now commonly held that the scientific method is changeable, see for instance Feyerabend's ''Against Method''.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]] See the page on [[Possibility of Scientonomy - Argument from Changability Changeability of Scientific Method]] for more details.
The sociology of scientific knowledge, developed by Barnes and Bloor, argues against the underlying rationalism within the internal factors of scientific change, and instead proposes that the external sociological factors are the best description of scientific change.[[CiteRef::Barnes and Bloor (1982)]] This denies the nothing permanent thesis by supposing the permanent features in scientific change are encompassed by sociology. See the page on [[Possibility of Scientonomy - The Argument from Social Construction]] for more details.