editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 16:04, 4 July 2017
, 16:04, 4 July 2017no edit summary
|Title=Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal
|Theory Type=Normative
|Formulation Text=xxxxScientonomy should describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed methods take place. Any such instance of scientific change is a result of appraisal, which is a decision of the community to accept a proposed modification to the mosaic. Scientonomy must provide an account of this appraisal process. A theory of scientific change is not required to account for the process of theory construction.
|Topic=Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Description=xxxxThe goal of [[scientonomy]] is to give a descriptive account of the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]]. Given this goal, it is obvious that it must describe and explain how changes in the [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] of accepted scientific [[Theory|theories]] and employed [[Method|methods]] take place. Any actual instance of scientific change is the result of an appraisal. Therefore, a theory of scientific change ''must'' provide an account of how theories are actually appraised and thereby explain how changes in the mosaic occur. On the other hand, it ''can'' but is ''not required'' to account for the process of theory construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 29]]
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=[[Hans Reichenbach]] is commonly considered to have been the first to draw the distinction between the context of discovery, which is a historical and creative process having to do with the construction of the theory, and the context of justification, which is the supposedly distinct logical enterprise of the defense and appraisal of a theory.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1980)]] The idea that the historical context of discovery can be clearly distinguished from the logical context of justification was questioned by [[Norwood Hanson|Hanson]], [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], and [[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 23]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)|p. 149]]
[[Paul Hoyningen-Huene]] proposed a lean distinction between the two contexts, proposing that they are simply two different perspectives that can be taken towards scientific knowledge. Unlike earlier views, it does not suppose that discovery and justification are two distinct processes.[[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2006)|pp. 128-130]] [[Hakob Barseghyan]] deemed the terms ''discovery'' and ''justification'' to be misleading.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 23-25]] ''Discovery'' is generally taken to refer to an epistemic achievement that has been positively appraised, such as the discovery of the planet Neptune. The term ''construction'', used instead, refers to the creative processes by which new theories come about. Theories undergo a process of appraisal by a scientific community. Thus, we speak of the questions of theory construction and theory appraisal.
|Page Status=Editor Approved
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2016
|Accepted From Month=January
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-29]] and became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
