Difference between revisions of "Status of Reasons"
(Created page with "{{Topic |Question=Do epistemic communities accept reasons during theory acceptance? If they do, what is the nature of the relationship between reasons and scientific change? |...") |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Topic | {{Topic | ||
| − | |Question=Do epistemic communities accept reasons during theory acceptance? If they do, what is the nature of the relationship between reasons and scientific change? | + | |Question=Do epistemic communities accept reasons during theory acceptance? If they do, what is the nature of the relationship between reasons and scientific change? Is it possible for a theory to remain accepted while the original reason for its acceptance is replaced by another? |
|Topic Type=Descriptive | |Topic Type=Descriptive | ||
|Description=Epistemic communities seem to accept or reject reasons for theories. Currently, Scientonomy does not accept reasons and thus lacks an account of the status of reasons. Are reasons theories? Are reasons theories about theories? Are they components of scientific mosaics? | |Description=Epistemic communities seem to accept or reject reasons for theories. Currently, Scientonomy does not accept reasons and thus lacks an account of the status of reasons. Are reasons theories? Are reasons theories about theories? Are they components of scientific mosaics? | ||
| − | |Authors List=Abdullah Sarwar, Intishar Kazi | + | |
| + | Imagine a scenario where a theory ''T'' is accepted because of reason ''R<sub>1</sub>''. However, 'R<sub>1</sub>'' is later replaced by another reason 'R<sub>2</sub>''. Does this change necessarily entail that T should be replaced as well? | ||
| + | |Parent Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance | ||
| + | |Authors List=Abdullah Sarwar, Hakob Barseghyan, Intishar Kazi | ||
|Formulated Year=2018 | |Formulated Year=2018 | ||
| + | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018 Fall | ||
| + | |Prehistory= | ||
| + | |History= | ||
| + | |Current View= | ||
| + | |Page Status=Needs Editing | ||
| + | |Editor Notes=This is poorly named | ||
| + | |Order=1 | ||
| + | |Lower Order Elements= | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 13: | Line 24: | ||
|Accepted From Day=18 | |Accepted From Day=18 | ||
|Accepted From Approximate=No | |Accepted From Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Acceptance Indicators= | ||
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 14:13, 29 December 2022
Do epistemic communities accept reasons during theory acceptance? If they do, what is the nature of the relationship between reasons and scientific change? Is it possible for a theory to remain accepted while the original reason for its acceptance is replaced by another?
Epistemic communities seem to accept or reject reasons for theories. Currently, Scientonomy does not accept reasons and thus lacks an account of the status of reasons. Are reasons theories? Are reasons theories about theories? Are they components of scientific mosaics? Imagine a scenario where a theory T is accepted because of reason R1. However, 'R1 is later replaced by another reason 'R2. Does this change necessarily entail that T should be replaced as well?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan, Abdullah Sarwar and Intishar Kazi in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 18 October 2018 | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017).
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance
The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017) states: "If a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory can be accepted or not accepted."
.png)
According to this formulation of the second law, if a theory satisfies the acceptance criteria of the method actually employed at the time, then it becomes accepted into the mosaic; if it does not, it remains unaccepted; if it is inconclusive whether the theory satisfies the method, the theory can be accepted or not accepted.
Unlike the previous formulation of the second law, this formulation makes the causal connection between theory assessment outcomes and cases of theory acceptance/unacceptance explicit. In particular, it specifies what happens to a theory in terms of its acceptance/unacceptance when a certain assessment outcome obtains.
In addition, this new formulation is clearly not a tautology because it forbids certain logically possible scenarios, such as a theory satisfying the method of the time yet remaining unaccepted.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.
