Changes

|Description=On the one hand, there are the changes in the belief systems of an ''individual'' scientist. On the other hand, there are the changes in the mosaic of a ''community'' of scientists. The beliefs of individual scientists, can follow a different trajectory than beliefs of a community of scientists. This raises the question is: which of these two processes should a scientonomic theory trace and account for? Should a scientonomic theory concern itself only with individual scientists, only with communities, or both?

|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,

|Prehistory=In the first half of the 20th Century, philosophers of science were mainly concerned with individual scientists. Logical positivists and logical empiricists focused on the logic behind the scientific change which mainly involved probability. By contrast, [[Karl Popper]] was concerned with falsification and constant testing of the scientific theories.[[CiteRef::Popper (2002a)|p. 17]] Falsification requires other members of the scientific community to test the theories. As a result, Popper was one of the first philosophers of science to give a place to the role of the community.[[CiteRef::Longino (2015)]] In the 60’s, [[Thomas Kuhn]] brought the importance of the scientific community to the forefront. He argued that scientific change took place at the communal level from one paradigm to another.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|p. 22,77]] One of the feature of Kuhn’s view was to examine actual historical episodes rather than a priori theorizing.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|p. 1]] This included studying actual scientific communities and how the community actually changed their beliefs. He talked about the role of social influence such as the conversion of scientists from one paradigm to another in revolutionary science periods. [[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)|p. 119]] Sociologists of scientific knowledge took the idea of studying the social influences in scientific change and applied it to many scientific episodes in 70s and 80’s. They argued that scientific communities are communities like any other and the changes in their beliefs can be examined sociologically. However, their members occasionally used individual scientists as their case studies. For example, [[John Farley]] and [[Gerald Geison]] examined the beliefs and practices of Pasteur, who is an individual scientist, in their case study.[[CiteRef::Farley and Geison (1974)]] Social epistemologists have also argued that traditional philosophy of science did not take the social dimensions of knowledge seriously. For example, [[Helen Longino]] has given central importance to the role of transformative criticism in the scientific progress.[[CiteRef::Longino (1990)|p. 74]] Consequently, unlike Popper who gave a practical importance to the concept of community, Longino believes that interaction with the community is a prerequisite for scientific progress.[[CiteRef::Longino (1990)|p. 119]]|History=|Current View=|Related Topics=Individual Level, Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit, Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal, Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative, Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit, Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale, Individual Level, Social Level,