Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
|Question=How do disciplinary boundaries exist within the scientific mosaic?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=A community's [[Scientific Mosaic|mosaic]] consists of the set of all accepted [[Theory|theories]] and employed [[Method|methods]] by the community at some particular time. How do disciplinary boundaries exist within the mosaic: are they expressible as theories and/or methods?Is the statement of disciplinary boundaries a mere definition of a discipline, a description of what a discipline has been doing, or a normative prescription of what a discipline ought to do. For example, when physicists say "Physics is the study of physical processes", it's not quite clear whether this is meant as a definition, description or prescription. It can have three different meanings:* '''definition''': physics, ''by definition'', is the study of physical processes;* '''description''': physics ''has been'' studying physical processes; * '''prescription''': physics ''ought to'' study physical processes.So the task is to clarify the exact nature of disciplinary boundaries.
|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
2,020

edits

Navigation menu