Changes

{{Definitional Topic

|Topic Type=Definitional|Description=When changes in the scientific mosaic occur due to forces outside of what a mosaic considers to be “intellectual,” those sources of change are referred to as “sociocultural factors.” Sociocultural factors can include individual and group interests, power, religion, politics, economics, etc. As the demarcation between science and non-science is currently understood to be a local distinction, we are unable to explicate generally applicable descriptions for what should be considered sociocultural factors, and which are intellectual. Identifying any of the above influences (political, religious, etc.) as either “sociocultural” or “intellectual” can only be done with regards to a particular mosaic.  Currently, it is understood that the laws of scientific change allow for the influence of sociocultural factors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 239]] Sociocultural factors can affect scientific change in one of two different ways, as the process of scientific change is broken down into two elements.  The two questions concerning the role of sociocultural factors in scientific change are stated as follows:  1. Can sociocultural factors affect the process of theory acceptance, and, if so, under what conditions can they affect the process?[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 235]] 2. Can sociocultural factors affect the process of method employment and, if so, under what conditions can they affect the profess?[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 235]] At this stage, Scientonomy will not be addressing the question of what role sociocultural factors play in theory construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 234]]

|Prehistory=In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the Cartesian mosaic, and much of the Newtonian mosaic, scientists were for the most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of reason and evidence.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)|p. 150]],[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]] The distinction between intellectual and sociocultural influences in science were not clearly defined, as there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we now consider to be “sociocultural” ''sociocultural'' organically fell under the rationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]]  In his article ''External and Internal Factors in the Development of Science'', Dudley Shapere argues for the formation of disciplinary boundaries within the sciences as a necessary prerequisite for a distinction between intellectual and sociocultural factors. He 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. Once scientific sub-disciplines were able to be demarcated as either scientific or non-scientific. Once an idea of what 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 scientific enterprise.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]

The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as “internal” factors, In his article ''External and all other influences originating Internal Factors in the realm Development of society as “external” factors.Science'', [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233Dudley Shapere]] Karl Popper also used argues for the formation of disciplinary boundaries within the terms “external” sciences as a necessary prerequisite for a distinction between intellectual and “internal” when discussing sociocultural factors. He 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 mainly discussed the role logically compatible with each other. Once scientific sub-disciplines were able to be demarcated as either scientific or non-scientific. Once an idea of what constituted as ''science'' was formed, it was possible for scientists to label all other disciplines that had not made the ''internal'' cut as ''external factors on theory construction'' to the scientific enterprise.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Shapere (20151986)|p. 233]] In 1970, Imre Lakotos suggested that what constitutes as “external” and what is “internal” is defined by the methodology of the time.

“External The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as ''internal'' factors, and all other influences originating in the realm of society as ''external'' factors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] [[Karl Popper]] also used the terms ''external'' and ''internal'' when discussing sociocultural factors, and mainly discussed the role of the external factors on theory construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] In 1970, [[Imre Lakatos]] suggested that what constitutes as ''external'' and what is ''internal'' is defined by the methodology of the time. "External history either provides non-rational explanation of the speed, locality, selectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history",” Lakotos Lakatos writes in his ''History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction'', “or"or, when history differs from its rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of why it differs. But the rational as- pect aspect of scientific growth is fully accounted for by one's logic of scientific discovery.”"[[CiteRef::Lakotos Lakatos (1971a)|pp. 105-106]]

[[Hakob Barseghyan ]] agrees with Lakotos Lakatos in ''The Laws of Scientific Change '' that the study only a theory of different methodologies across history of science scientific change can reveal tell us which factors are factors are internal to science and which external.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 234]] However, he argues that if we were to define all ''sociocultural factors '' as being “external” all those factors that are external to sciencescientific change, then according to the laws whole question of the role of scientific changesociocultural factors would become vacuous; by definition, those factors would not never be able to have an influence over sciencescientific change. Therefore, ''sociocultural factors'' cannot be defined in terms of ''external'' factors. It is due to this that the Scientonomic [[Community:Scientonomy|Scientonomy community abandoned the ]] doesn't use of the terms “internal” ''internal'' and “external” ''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.