The theorem states that {{Definitional Topic|Question=What are '''sociocultural factors can affect ?''' How should they be ''defined?''|Description=|Formulated Year=2016|Prehistory=In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the Cartesian mosaic, and much of the Newtonian mosaic, scientists were for the process most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of theory acceptance insofar 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 it is permitted by there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the method employed at sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we now consider to be ''sociocultural'' organically fell under the timerationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]]
== Pre-History ==<div class="mw-collapsible mwIn 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-collapsed"> Numerous philosophers seeking enterprise of science have engaged was broken up into a multitude of small specialized disciplines, each smaller discipline with its own laws that dictated the role behaviour of sociocultural factors particular phenomena. Following from here, scientists in the development 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, prior it was possible for scientists to label all other disciplines that had not made the ''internal'' cut as ''external'' to the TSC’s conceptionscientific enterprise.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)]]
James Brown’s contribution The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the dialogue surrounding this topic is made most clear in his book, sciences as ''Who Rules in Scienceinternal''. In it, Brown describes several cases in the history of science that demonstrate sociocultural factors affecting theory acceptance. Examples cited in this volume include the permissibility of mystical and anti-rational ideas in Weimar Germany, and how this heightened the appeal of scientific theories on causality and quantum phenomena, along with tension between Louis Pasteur’s socio-political allegiances and work all other influences originating in crystallography. Brown also makes reference to the four tenets realm of David Bloor’s strong program, which advises historians on how to study science scientifically. According to Bloor, an historical reconstruction of science should account for:* society as ''external'Causality''': A proper account of science would be causal, that is, it should be concerned with the conditions that bring about belief or states of knowledgefactors.[[CiteRef::Brown Barseghyan (20012015)|p. 233]]* [[Karl Popper]] also used the terms ''external'Impartiality'and '': It would be impartial with respect to truth internal'' when discussing sociocultural factors, and falsity, rationality or irrationality, success or failure. Both sides mainly discussed the role of these dichotomies will require explanationthe external factors on theory construction.[[CiteRef::Brown Barseghyan (20012015)|p. 233]]* In 1970, [[Imre Lakatos]] suggested that what constitutes as ''external''and what is 'Symmetry'internal'': It would be symmetrical in its style is defined by the methodology of the time. "External history either provides non-rational explanation. The same types of causes would explainthe speed, saylocality, true and falseselectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history", [rational and irrational] beliefs.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)]] * Lakatos writes in his ''History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction'Reflexivity''': In principle , "or, when history differs from its patterns rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of explanation would have to be applicable to sociology itselfwhy it differs. Like But the requirement rational aspect of symmetry, this scientific growth is a response to the need to seek fully accounted for general explanations. It is an obvious requirement by one's logic of principle; otherwise sociology would be a standing refutation of its own theoriesscientific discovery."[[CiteRef::Brown Lakatos (20011971a)|pp. 105-106]]
Another eminent philosopher that helped shape the discussion of sociocultural factors [[Hakob Barseghyan]] agrees with Lakatos in science is Dudley Shapere. Shapere believes that scientific practice is laden with inseparable social factors. He provides two ways of explicating this relationship. His ''The Laws of Scientific Change'strong thesis''' states that there is no “internal” factor guiding scientific development independently only a theory of non-scientific change can tell us which factors. His '''weak thesis states''', while there are such internal factors, they are insufficient by themselves internal to guide science, and must be supplemented by “external” factorswhich external.[[CiteRef::Shapere Barseghyan (19862015)|p. 234]] The logical positivists also upheld explicit views on the role of However, he argues that if we were to define ''sociocultural factors in '' as all those factors that are external to scientific development. They held a traditional view change, then the whole question of the role of internal and external (sociocultural) factors. To the positivistswould become vacuous; by definition, internal those factors are merely propositions about the world (both general and singular)would never be able to influence scientific change. External Therefore, ''sociocultural factors are those born '' cannot be defined in the domains terms of society, economics, politics, culture, personal and collective religion, and the like. For Imre Lakatos, the difference between internal and ''external '' factors depended on the accepted methodology of the time. This distinction allowed Lakatos It is due to believe this that it was rational for scientists to stick to a theory despite all the anomalies if there was no better theory on the market.[[CiteRefCommunity::Shapere (1986)Scientonomy|Scientonomy community]]</div> == History ==<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> The current formulation of doesn't use the terms ''internal'' and ''external'' to describe intellectual and sociocultural factors theorem has remained unchanged since it’s initial debut in the TSC. It states that sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it is permitted by the method employed at the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]</div> == |Current View ==Sociocultural factors can affect the process of theory acceptance insofar as it The term is permitted by the method employed at the time. Factors such as individuals and group interests, power, religion, politics, and economics can affect theory acceptance either only loosely described in violation or in full accordance with the ''The Laws of Scientific Change. A third outcome would be one in which it is unclear if a historical case of theory acceptance was in accord or in violation '' as encompassing all of the Laws of Scientific Change. Hypothetical cases of theory acceptance in violation of the Laws include the Lost Manuscript Case and the Elimination Case.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] In the formernon-epistemic factors that affect scientific change including political, economic, a community accepts a theory on the basis of a single manuscript which no member of the community has memorized in whole and which cannot be copied. In this case, should the manuscript be destroyed or lost then the theory itself would be lost with no means of replacing it in the community’s scientific mosaic. Such a case would a violation of the First Law due to sociocultural social factors. In Elimination Case, all members of a community that adhere to a politically dissatisfactory theory are either killed or driven out of the community by social authorities allowing a theory that does not satisfy the method of the time into the mosaic. Such a case would be a violation of the Second Law due to sociocultural factors. An historical example of this violation can be found in the forced acceptance of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia under Stalin. All Soviet geneticists that did not accept soft inheritance were sent to labour camps or executed under the Stalinist regime. A hypothetical case of theory acceptance in accord with the Laws of Scientific Change is the High Priest Caseas well as group and individual interests.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 233-234]] In this example a community bears a mosaic that houses the belief that an infallible high priest always grasps the true essence of thingsA more precise definition is needed. The high priest has the ability to manipulate the mosaic and these manipulations will be accepted because the method employed dictates this. In this case, an individual’s interests dictate which theories get accepted into the mosaic. Yet, the method |Related Topics=Role of this mosaic is a deductive consequence of the infallibility of the high priestSociocultural Factors in Method Employment, making the acceptance Role of any theory Sociocultural Factors in accord with their wishes consonant with the Laws of Scientific Change. == Open Questions ==* How do sociocultural factors affect method employment?* Do factors such as individual and collective interests influence the process of scientific change? If so, does this happen in violation of the laws of science change? == Related Articles ==* Assessment* Role of Methodology == Notes == == Authors ==Stephen WattSociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance, 2016 {{#referencelist:}} {{#scite:Barseghyan (2015) |typePage Status=book |author=Barseghyan, Hakob |title=The Laws of Scientific Change |year=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3319175959Needs Editing}}{{#scite:Brown (2001) |type=book |author=Brown, James |title=Who Rules in Science? |year=2001Acceptance Record |publisherCommunity=Harvard University Press}}{{#sciteCommunity:Shapere (1986)Scientonomy |typeAccepted From Era=journalCE |authorAccepted From Year=Shapere, Dudley2016 |titleAccepted From Month=External and Internal Factors in the Development of ScienceJanuary |journalAccepted From Day=Science & Technology Studies1 |volumeAccepted From Approximate=4No |yearStill Accepted=1986Yes |pagesAccepted Until Approximate=1-9No
}}