Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit

{{Topic |Question=Ought a scientonomic theory account for only changes to explicit elements of the mosaic or must it also deal with changes in implicit elements that are not openly stated? |Topic Type=Normative |Description=In the context of theory appraisal, the term 'method' has, in the past, been used in two different ways. One refers to explicitly professed rules of theory assessment as featured in the written works of scientists, the other has to do with implicit rules actually employed in theory assessment.1p. 52 Many philosophers and historians of science argued that scientists often acted differently than what their explicitly prescribed methodologies required. This raises the question about whether a scientonomic theory should distinguish the two, and if so, how should it treat them? The answer to this question will change the scope of the scientonomic theories. |Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, |Formulated Year=2015 |Prehistory=This was not an issue during the era of logical positivists, logical empiricists and Karl Popper due to the fact that they were mainly concerned with normative theories. As a result, their theories have concentrated on explicit requirements rather than the actual expectations of science. For example, Popper has criticized logical positivists on a priori explicit methodological grounds.2 It is also important to note that all of them agreed on the existence of a universal scientific method.[[CiteRef::Ayer (1952)] [[CiteRef::Popper (1963)] While they disagreed on what the exact method was, they still presupposed it. Consequently, they believed that all scientific communities utilized the scientific method either explicitly or implicitly. The view over the existence of a universal scientific method is also shared by John Worrall as well.3

Thomas Kuhn was more ambiguous on the issue. He rejected the existence of a universal method and believed that different paradigms employed different methods.4 However, his view can be read as change in methodology as well. After a paradigm shift occurs, scientists change their explicitly stated methodology in the new textbooks. Thus, it is not clear what his view is on this issue.

Larry Laudan believed that there was a disconnection between what scientists believed they were doing and what they were actually doing.5 The former refers to the explicit statements of scientists on how their science should be conducted. These requirements were different in various periods. Laudan gives the example of the transition from the inductivist methodology to the hypothetico-deductive methodology.5 Inductivism forbids positing the existence of unobservable entities. However, scientists in the 19th Century were positing the existence of many unobservable entities including atoms and the force of gravity. Laudan subsequently argues that we should focus on the actual expectations of the scientific community rather than the explicit expectations scientists say they possess.5 |Related Topics=Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit, Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal, Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative, Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social, Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale, Indicators of Method Employment, Indicators of Theory Acceptance, |Page Status=Needs Editing }}