editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit (view source)
Revision as of 20:43, 22 June 2017
, 20:43, 22 June 2017no edit summary
{{Topic
|Question=Ought a scientonomic theory account for the acceptance of new theories by the community? Ought it account for the instrumental use of theories that are not accepted as the best available description of the world? Ought it concern scientists ' decisions to pursue the development of new theories?
|Topic Type=Normative
|Description=Kuhn used a number of different and equally vague words, including 'universally received','embraced', 'acknowledged' and 'committed' to describe the status of theories within scientific communities. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) p. 30]] Sometimes the term 'accepted' is used without clarifying its meaning. Does it mean that scientists involved in the field have declared it to be true? or that they are actually involved in its elaboration? or that they approve of its use in practical applications? The question has to do with whether scientonomy needs to develop a taxonomy of possible statuses for scientific theories, and if so, what it should be.
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=In the historical literature, many different words have been used to describe attitudes a scientific community can possibly take towards a theory, generally without any attempt to clarify their respective meanings. Barseghyan [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |p. 30]] maintained that a clear and unambiguous nomenclature of the possible stances that a scientific community can take towards the theory is a must.
|Related Topics=Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal, Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative, Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit, Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social, Scope of Scientonomy, Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit, Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
