Difference between revisions of "Status of Models"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Topic Type=Descriptive | |Topic Type=Descriptive | ||
|Description=In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of ''models''. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered ''theory'' and ''proposition'' as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is ''model'' somehow different from ''a set of propositions''? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions. | |Description=In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of ''models''. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered ''theory'' and ''proposition'' as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is ''model'' somehow different from ''a set of propositions''? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions. | ||
| − | |Parent Topic= | + | |Parent Topic=Epistemic Elements |
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan, | ||
|Formulated Year=2016 | |Formulated Year=2016 | ||
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016, | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016, | ||
| + | |Page Status=Needs Editing | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
Revision as of 20:00, 9 July 2017
What is the status of models in the mosaic?
In the contemporary philosophy of science, it is customary to consider theories as sets of models. In a sense, models are taken as something more fundamental than theories. In contrast, scientonomy has traditionally considered theory and proposition as synonyms. In the scientonomic context, propositions/theories are considered fundamental elements of a mosaic. This leaves the question of the status of models in a mosaic. Is model somehow different from a set of propositions? I.e. is there anything in a model that cannot be reduced to propositions. E.g. is there anything in the Copernican heliocentric model that cannot be presented in a propositional form? If so, then models will have to be somehow incorporate into the ontology of scientific change. Otherwise, there will be no need in a concept of model separate from theories/propositions.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 1 April 2016 | Existence of Model became accepted by virtue of the acceptance of Model. This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016. | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Epistemic Elements.
