Difference between revisions of "Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal"
Paul Patton (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Description=[[Theory]] construction is the generation, or creation of new theories. Theory appraisal is the process by which a theory is evaluated for acceptance into a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. While these two processes may be historically intertwined, they nonetheless represent two distinctive perspectives that one might take towards a theory. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 21-30]] Ought scientonomy deal with the process of theory construction, of that of theory appraisal, or with both of them? | |Description=[[Theory]] construction is the generation, or creation of new theories. Theory appraisal is the process by which a theory is evaluated for acceptance into a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]]. While these two processes may be historically intertwined, they nonetheless represent two distinctive perspectives that one might take towards a theory. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 21-30]] Ought scientonomy deal with the process of theory construction, of that of theory appraisal, or with both of them? | ||
|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=The current statement of this question is the product of a long prior history. The precursor to the distinction between theory construction and theory appraisal was 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. This distinction was first explicitly drawn by [[Hans Reichenbach]]. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1980)]] It was implicit in works of scientific methodology going back to the nineteenth century, and has been traced by Popper back to Kant. [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]] 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]], who argued that the two were thoroughly intertwined. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |p. 23]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a) |p. 149]] | |Prehistory=The current statement of this question is the product of a long prior history. The precursor to the distinction between theory construction and theory appraisal was 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. This distinction was first explicitly drawn by [[Hans Reichenbach]]. [[CiteRef::Laudan (1980)]] It was implicit in works of scientific methodology going back to the nineteenth century, and has been traced by Popper back to Kant. [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]] 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]], who argued that the two were thoroughly intertwined. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |p. 23]][[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a) |p. 149]] | ||
Paul Hoyningen-Huene [[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2006) |pp. 128-130]] proposed a lean distinction between the two contexts, supposing that they are simply two different perspectives that can be taken towards scientific knowledge. He did not see discovery and justification are two distinct processes, thereby sidestepping earlier objections. While accepting this lean distinction, Barseghyan [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 23-25]] argued that the terms 'discovery' and 'justification' are misleading names to apply to the two perspectives. The term 'discovery' is inappropriate because a discovery is generally taken to be an epistemic achievement that has been positively appraised, such as the discovery of the planet Neptune. The term 'construction', he supposes, is better suited to refer to the creative processes by which new theories are formulated. These processes are generally seen to lie within the subject matter of psychology and sociology. Theories undergo a process of appraisal by a scientific community which involves reasoning processes. This question is a question about what scientonomy ought to take as its subject matter, theory construction, theory appraisal, or both. | Paul Hoyningen-Huene [[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2006) |pp. 128-130]] proposed a lean distinction between the two contexts, supposing that they are simply two different perspectives that can be taken towards scientific knowledge. He did not see discovery and justification are two distinct processes, thereby sidestepping earlier objections. While accepting this lean distinction, Barseghyan [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015) |pp. 23-25]] argued that the terms 'discovery' and 'justification' are misleading names to apply to the two perspectives. The term 'discovery' is inappropriate because a discovery is generally taken to be an epistemic achievement that has been positively appraised, such as the discovery of the planet Neptune. The term 'construction', he supposes, is better suited to refer to the creative processes by which new theories are formulated. These processes are generally seen to lie within the subject matter of psychology and sociology. Theories undergo a process of appraisal by a scientific community which involves reasoning processes. This question is a question about what scientonomy ought to take as its subject matter, theory construction, theory appraisal, or both. | ||
| − | |Related Topics=Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative, Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit, Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social | + | |History= |
| + | |Current View= | ||
| + | |Related Topics=Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit, 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=Editor Approved | |Page Status=Editor Approved | ||
| + | |Editor Notes= | ||
| + | |Order=2 | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 21: | Line 25: | ||
|Acceptance Indicators=The community has accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-30 ]] | |Acceptance Indicators=The community has accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)| pp. 21-30 ]] | ||
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 21:30, 16 October 2022
Ought the process of scientific change be viewed from the perspective of theory construction or that of theory appraisal?
Theory construction is the generation, or creation of new theories. Theory appraisal is the process by which a theory is evaluated for acceptance into a scientific mosaic. While these two processes may be historically intertwined, they nonetheless represent two distinctive perspectives that one might take towards a theory. 1pp. 21-30 Ought scientonomy deal with the process of theory construction, of that of theory appraisal, or with both of them?
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 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.
Contents
Broader History
The current statement of this question is the product of a long prior history. The precursor to the distinction between theory construction and theory appraisal was 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. This distinction was first explicitly drawn by Hans Reichenbach. 2 It was implicit in works of scientific methodology going back to the nineteenth century, and has been traced by Popper back to Kant. 3 The idea that the historical context of discovery can be clearly distinguished from the logical context of justification was questioned by Hanson, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, who argued that the two were thoroughly intertwined. 1p. 234p. 149
Paul Hoyningen-Huene 5pp. 128-130 proposed a lean distinction between the two contexts, supposing that they are simply two different perspectives that can be taken towards scientific knowledge. He did not see discovery and justification are two distinct processes, thereby sidestepping earlier objections. While accepting this lean distinction, Barseghyan 1pp. 23-25 argued that the terms 'discovery' and 'justification' are misleading names to apply to the two perspectives. The term 'discovery' is inappropriate because a discovery is generally taken to be an epistemic achievement that has been positively appraised, such as the discovery of the planet Neptune. The term 'construction', he supposes, is better suited to refer to the creative processes by which new theories are formulated. These processes are generally seen to lie within the subject matter of psychology and sociology. Theories undergo a process of appraisal by a scientific community which involves reasoning processes. This question is a question about what scientonomy ought to take as its subject matter, theory construction, theory appraisal, or both.
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | The community has accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate. pp. 21-30 | Yes |
All Theories
| Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015) | Scientonomy 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. | 2015 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
| Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 |
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015).
Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Scientonomy 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."
The goal of scientonomy is to give a descriptive account of the process of scientific change. Given this goal, it is obvious that it must describe and explain how changes in the mosaic of accepted scientific theories and employed 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.1p. 29
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Scope of Scientonomy.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
References
- a b c d Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
- ^ Laudan, Larry. (1980) Why Was the Logic of Scientific Discovery Abandoned? In Nickles (Ed.) (1980), 173-183.
- ^ Popper, Karl. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co.
- ^ Feyerabend, Paul. (1975) Against Method. New Left Books.
- ^ Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. (2006) Context of Discovery Versus Context of Justification and Thomas Kuhn. In Schickore and Steinle (Eds.) (2006), 119-131.
