Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
* '''prescription''': physics ''ought to'' study physical processes.
Is it possible that actual disciplinary boundaries are some kind of a combination of the three? If that is so, then how are the definition of a discipline, its description and its prescription interrelated? The task is to clarify the exact nature of disciplinary boundaries.
|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific ChangeEpistemic Elements
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2016
Kuhn, like Lakatos, never took an explicit stance on disciplinary boundaries. Kuhn had a very interesting system of five shared values which theories progress through. Ignoring his future contradictions and deconstructions of these values, one of the five values which shows his recognition of disciplinary boundaries is consistency. Consistency as a value entailed that a theory be internally consistent but also consistent with other theories of the paradigm. Like in the case for Lakatos, disciplinary boundaries are seen as ambiguous but at least recognized by Kuhn.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1973)|pp. 320-339]]
|Related Topics=Status of Questions,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
{{Acceptance Record

Navigation menu