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

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
|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?
 
|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=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?
+
|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 [[Theory Use|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=In its most general sense, the key question at issue is that of what ontological units a scientonomic theory ought to take as its subject matter. The specific form of the question has evolved with changing notions of those ontological units. Thomas Kuhn's theory of scientific change identified the ontological units of scientific change as frameworks which he referred to as ''paradigms'', which can be defined as a characteristic set of beliefs and preconceptions held by a scientific community including instrumental, theoretical, and metaphysical commitments all together. [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962)]][[CiteRef::Kuhn(1977)|pp.293-319]] Kuhn himself confessed that he had confusingly used the term in several different senses. [[CiteRef::Kuhn(1977)|pp.293-294]] In an attempt to clarify matters he sought to replace his broadest definition of the paradigm, given above, with the concept of ''disciplinary matrices'', defined as those shared elements that account for the relatively unproblematic professional communication and relative unanimity of professional judgment within a scientific community. [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977) |p.297]] For Kuhn, then, a theory of scientific change ought to deal with disciplinary matrices and their changes over time. While for Kuhn, paradigms or disciplinary matrices were primary, there was likewise confusion about the different stances a community might take towards a theory. Kuhn 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 (1962)|pp. 10-13]]
+
|Prehistory=In its most general sense, the key question at issue is that of what ontological units a scientonomic theory ought to take as its subject matter. The prehistory of the descriptive topic of the [[Ontology of Scientific Change|ontological units of scientific change]] is discussed elsewhere. The prehistory of concepts of the [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances that communities might take towards theories]] is likewise dealt with elsewhere. The normative question at issue, in its current form, arises specifically within the context of the ontology assumed by the current Barseghyan [[Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]], and the definitions of its key concepts such as the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], [[Theory Acceptance|theory acceptance]], [[Theory Pursuit|theory pursuit]], and [[Theory Use|theory use]].
 
+
|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, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories, Ontology of Scientific Change, Theory Acceptance, Theory Use, Theory Pursuit,
The prehistory of ontologies of scientific change is best discussed elsewhere. The question at issue can only be stated in its current form given the specific ontology of scientific change assumed by the Barseghyan theory.
 
 
 
 
 
Until a proper taxonomy of [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories|epistemic stances towards theories]] was formulated the question at issue could not be clearly framed
 
|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, Epistemic Stances Towards Theories,
 
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 
|Page Status=Needs Editing
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 18:24, 25 July 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

In its most general sense, the key question at issue is that of what ontological units a scientonomic theory ought to take as its subject matter. The prehistory of the descriptive topic of the ontological units of scientific change is discussed elsewhere. The prehistory of concepts of the epistemic stances that communities might take towards theories is likewise dealt with elsewhere. The normative question at issue, in its current form, arises specifically within the context of the ontology assumed by the current Barseghyan theory of scientific change, and the definitions of its key concepts such as the scientific mosaic, theory acceptance, theory pursuit, and theory use.

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.