Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|Topic Type=Definitional
At The [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)|initial notion of ''scientific mosaic'']] worked well with the original ontology of epistemic elements suggested by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] as well as the momentmodified ontology suggested by [[Zoe Sebastien|Sebastien]] in [[Sebastien (2016)|"The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change"]], since in both ontologies [[Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)|theories ]] and [[Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)|methods ]] are believed to be the only two fundamental entities that constitute a scientific mosaic. In the TSC, values are not regarded as separate entities within the scientific mosaic. This is because all values can be formulated as methods, there is no essential distinction between the twotypes of epistemic elements.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 6-7]][[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]]
While it is not included in With the definitionacceptance of [[William Rawleigh|Rawleigh]]'s new ontology of epistemic elements which added questions as a new [[Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)|type of epistemic element]], it is understood became apparent that the bearer definition of a scientific mosaic is a should be adjusted to include questions.[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]] [[Scientific CommunityMosaic (Barseghyan-2018)|scientific communityOne such definition]] was suggested by Barseghyan in his [[Barseghyan (2018)|"Redrafting the Ontology of Scientific Change"]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (20152018)]] The new definition became [[Modification:Sciento-2018-0009|p. xibecame accepted]] The reason for in 2020. As this omission definition does not refer to any epistemic elements explicitly, it is in principle compatible with any future ontology insofar as that there is currently no accepted definition ontology involves the notions of ''scientific communityacceptance'' and ''employment''.
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Question=What is '''scientific mosaic'''? How should it be ''defined''?
|Description=''Scientific mosaic'' is one of the key concepts in current scientonomy. Thus, its proper definition is of great importance.
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=Although almost all of the great philosophers of science of the 20th century have described the history of science in terms of a changing, systematic collection of beliefs, there has never been a real consensus in the language used to describe such a collection. [[Thomas Kuhn]] used the word ''paradigm'' to talk of integrated collections of theories, methods, and values that were replaced during episodes of revolutionary scientific change.[[CiteRef::Bird (2011)]][[CiteRef::Kuhn (19621962a)]] [[Imre Lakatos]] described a set of propositions as fitting into a scientific ''research programme'';[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1978a)]] [[Larry Laudan]] used the concept of ''research tradition''.[[CiteRef::Matheson and Dallmann (2015)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] Richard DeWitt talks of ''worldviews'' to describe the beliefs held by a scientific community at any given time.[[CiteRef::DeWitt (2010)|p. 7]]
Although these terms are used to describe collections of scientific beliefs at some particular point in history, it would be wrong to assume that they are interchangeable. There has been much debate within the philosophy of science over what constitutes the exact contents of a given community’s system of beliefs. While for [[Karl Popper]] and [[Imre Lakatos]] a belief system would only include descriptive propositions, for the later Larry Laudan, methods and values should be included along with theories as part of the fabric of a community’s belief system.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|p. 26]]
There has also been debate concerning whether or not scientific methods change over time. The methods of science were once supposed to be fixed. The idea that methods should be included as historically relative elements within a community’s system of beliefs is known as [[Static and Dynamic Methods|the dynamic method thesis]], and was proposed by [[Paul Feyerabend]] in the 1970’s.[[CiteRef::Preston (2016)]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]] In the late 1980's, the question of the existence of static methods became a focal point of the debate between Larry Laudan and John Worrall. In his ''Science and Values'', Laudan (referred to as the 'later Laudan' because his views changed substantially over his career) argued that no method of theory assessment is immune to change. Worrall disagreed, claiming that there are some methods which have persisted throughout all changes.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1988)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1989a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1989)]] The idea that scientific methods change through time is now generally accepted among contemporary historians and philosophers of science.
|History=The term ''scientific mosaic'' was coined by [[Hakob Barseghyan |Barseghyan]] in 2012 within the context of the [[The Theory of Scientific Change]] (TSC). It was suggested at the outset that a scientific mosaic should be understood as a collection of ''changeable '' [[Theory|theories ]] and [[Method|methods]]. The mosaic metaphor was chosen because the tiles of a mosaic may be tightly adjusted, or their may be a considerable gap between them. In scientific mosaics there may be considerable gaps, such as that between general relativity and quantum mechanics, despite the fact that both are accepted parts of the mosaic.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| p. 5]]|Current View=Currently, ''scientific mosaic'' is defined as a collection of all [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] theories and [[Employed Method|employed]] methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 5]] ''[[Theory]]'' is defined as any set of propositions, descriptive or normative,[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] while ''[[Method|method]]'' is defined as a set of requirements employed in theory assessment.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 3-10]]
|Related Topics=Scientific Change, Theory, Method, Mechanism of Scientific Change, Employed Method, Theory Acceptance,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=This is when the community accepted its first definition of the term, [[Scientific Mosaic (2015)]], which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
