Difference between revisions of "Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Topic
 
{{Topic
|Question=How ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? How ought it to classify those stances? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?
+
|Question=How ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?
 
|Topic Type=Normative
 
|Topic Type=Normative
|Description=There has been a long tradition of confusing different stances that a community can take towards a theory. Kuhn, for instance, used a number of equally vague words, including ''universally received'',''embraced'', ''acknowledged'', and ''committed'', to describe the status of theories within scientific communities.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1970c)|pp. 10-13]] ''Acceptance'' too has had a plethora of different meanings. Once the taxonomy of epistemic stances is clarified, it is important to identify stances for which changes ''ought to be'' traced and explained by scientonomy.
+
|Description=Communities may take several [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances]] towards theories. Theories can be [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] by a community as the best currently available description of the world. Even when they are not so accepted, they can be deemed [[Epistemic Stances - Acceptance Use and Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)|instrumentally useful]] for certain problems. They can be deemed promising and worthy of [[Theory Pursuit|pursuit]]. The question at issue here is that of which of these stances need a scientonomic theory account for. Ought it account only for accepted theories, or ought it also account for scientists decisions to pursue theories as worthy of further development, or their decisions to treat theories as instrumentally useful?
 
|Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy
 
|Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy
 
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
 
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
 
|Formulated Year=2015
 
|Formulated Year=2015
 +
|Prehistory=There has been a long tradition of confusing different stances that a community can take towards a theory.  Thomas Kuhn, for example, used a number of equally vague words, including universally received, embraced, acknowledged, and committed to describe the status of theories within scientific communities.
 
|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 - Time Fields and Scale,
 
|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 - Time Fields and Scale,
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing

Revision as of 16:43, 28 June 2017

How ought a scientonomic theory deal with the various stances that a community might take towards a theory? Which stances towards a theory ought a scientonomic theory account for?

Communities may take several epistemic stances towards theories. Theories can be accepted by a community as the best currently available description of the world. Even when they are not so accepted, they can be deemed instrumentally useful for certain problems. They can be deemed promising and worthy of pursuit. The question at issue here is that of which of these stances need a scientonomic theory account for. Ought it account only for accepted theories, or ought it also account for scientists decisions to pursue theories as worthy of further development, or their decisions to treat theories as instrumentally useful?

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:

  • Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.

Broader History

There has been a long tradition of confusing different stances that a community can take towards a theory. Thomas Kuhn, for example, used a number of equally vague words, including universally received, embraced, acknowledged, and committed to describe the status of theories within scientific communities.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use.2015

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyScope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015).

Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Scientonomy ought to address the issue of how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place and what logic governs this evolution, and need not deal in questions of theory pursuit or use."

Scientonomy currently recognizes several different stances that an epistemic community might take towards a theory. The community might accept the theory as the best currently available description of the world, it might regard a theory as worthy of pursuit and further development, or it might regard the theory as adequate for use for some practical purpose, while not the best description of the world. 1pp. 30-42 These stances, and their opposites (i.e. that a theory is unaccepted, neglected, or unused)together constitute the range of stances that a community might take towards a theory. The concept of a scientific mosaic consisting of the set of all theories accepted, and all methods employed by the community 1pp.1-11 is central to scientonomy, as is the goal of explaining all changes in this mosaic. To fulfill this central goal, a scientonomic theory ought to explain how transitions from one accepted theory to another take place, and what logic governs that transition, but it doesn't necessarily need to explain why some theories are pursued and others neglected and why some are used and others remain unused. 1p. 42

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Scope of Scientonomy.

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. a b c  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.