Changes

{{Definitional Topic

|Topic TypeDescription=|Formulated Year=Definitional2016|DescriptionPrehistory=When changes in In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the scientific Cartesian mosaic occur due to forces outside , and much of what a the Newtonian mosaic considers to be “intellectual,” those sources scientists were for the most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of change are referred to as “sociocultural factorsreason and evidence.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)|p.” Sociocultural factors can include individual and group interests150]], power, religion, politics, economics, etc[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. As the demarcation 4]] The distinction between science intellectual and non-sociocultural influences in science is currently understood to be a local distinctionwere not clearly defined, as there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we are unable now consider to explicate generally applicable descriptions for what should be considered ''sociocultural factors, and which are intellectual'' organically fell under the rationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking. Identifying any of the above influences [[CiteRef::Shapere (political, religious, etc.1986) as either “sociocultural” or “intellectual” can only be done with regards to a particular mosaic|p. 4]]

Currently, it is understood that In his article ''External and Internal Factors in the laws Development of scientific change allow Science'', [[Dudley Shapere]] argues for the influence formation of disciplinary boundaries within the sciences as a necessary prerequisite for a distinction between intellectual and sociocultural factors.[Laws pHe argues that first, the knowledge-seeking enterprise of science was broken up into a multitude of small specialized disciplines, each smaller discipline with its own laws that dictated the behaviour of particular phenomena. Following from here, scientists in the nineteenth-century began to unify the multitude of smaller disciplines under general laws or ''Grand-Unified Theories'', which were all conceptually and logically compatible with each other. 239] Sociocultural factors can affect Once scientific sub-disciplines were able to be demarcated as either scientific or non-scientific change in one . Once an idea of two different wayswhat constituted as ''science'' was formed, it was possible for scientists to label all other disciplines that had not made the ''internal'' cut as ''external'' to the process of scientific change is broken down into two elementsenterprise. [[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]

The two questions concerning logical positivists were the role of sociocultural first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as ''internal'' factors , and all other influences originating in scientific change are stated the realm of society as follows''external'' factors.[[CiteRef:: 1Barseghyan (2015)|p. Can 233]] [[Karl Popper]] also used the terms ''external'' and ''internal'' when discussing sociocultural factors affect , and mainly discussed the process role of the external factors on theory acceptance, and, if so, under what conditions can they affect the process?construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 235233]] In 1970, [[Imre Lakatos]]2suggested that what constitutes as ''external'' and what is ''internal'' is defined by the methodology of the time. Can sociocultural factors affect "External history either provides non-rational explanation of the process speed, locality, selectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history", Lakatos writes in his ''History of method employment Science andits Rational Reconstruction'', if so"or, under what conditions can they affect when history differs from its rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of why it differs. But the profess?rational aspect of scientific growth is fully accounted for by one's logic of scientific discovery."[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Lakatos (20151971a)|ppp. 235105-106]]

At this stage, Scientonomy will not be addressing the question [[Hakob Barseghyan]] agrees with Lakatos in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' that only a theory of what role sociocultural scientific change can tell us which factors are factors play in theory constructionare internal to science and which external.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 234]]However, he argues that if we were to define ''sociocultural factors'' as all those factors that are external to scientific change, then the whole question of the role of sociocultural factors would become vacuous; by definition, those factors would never be able to influence scientific change. Therefore, ''sociocultural factors'' cannot be defined in terms of ''external'' factors. It is due to this that the [[Community:Scientonomy|Formulated Year=2016Scientonomy community]] doesn't use the terms ''internal'' and ''external'' to describe intellectual and sociocultural factors.|Current View=The term is only loosely described in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' as encompassing all of the non-epistemic factors that affect scientific change including political, religious, economic, and social factors, as well as group and individual interests.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 233-234]] A more precise definition is needed.