From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{Topic
| + | #REDIRECT [[Existence of Model]] |
| − | |Question=What is the status of '''models''' in the mosaic?
| |
| − | |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.
| |
| − | |Parent Topic=Epistemic Elements
| |
| − | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
| |
| − | |Formulated Year=2016
| |
| − | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016,
| |
| − | |Page Status=Needs Editing
| |
| − | }}
| |
| − | {{Acceptance Record
| |
| − | |Community=Community:Scientonomy
| |
| − | |Accepted From Era=CE
| |
| − | |Accepted From Year=2016
| |
| − | |Accepted From Month=April
| |
| − | |Accepted From Day=1
| |
| − | |Accepted From Approximate=No
| |
| − | |Acceptance Indicators=This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]].
| |
| − | |Still Accepted=Yes
| |
| − | |Accepted Until Approximate=No
| |
| − | }}
| |
Latest revision as of 16:21, 21 February 2023
