Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Subtypes of Epistemic Element (view source)
Revision as of 22:02, 27 February 2023
, 22:02, 27 February 2023no edit summary
|Description=In principle, the process of scientific change can concern many different types of epistemic elements. One important question is to establish the most fundamental units that undergo scientific change. Over the years, it has been argued that the fundamental units of scientific change include theories ([[Karl Popper|Popper]]), paradigms ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]]), research programmes ([[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]]), research traditions (early [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]), methods ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], [[Dudley Shapere|Shapere]], later [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]), and values ([[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]], later [[Larry Laudan|Laudan]]). This is not surprising, as any theory of scientific change needs to establish a basic ''ontology'' of epistemic elements that are part of the process of scientific change.
|Prehistory=[[Karl Popper]]’s theory of scientific change took theories to be the basic units of scientific change. According to Popper, as well as many other philosophers of science of the pre-Kuhnian era, it is theories that become accepted and rejected during the process of scientific change. [[CiteRef::Popper (1959)]]
[[Thomas Kuhn]]'s theory of scientific change identified the ontological units of scientific change as frameworks which he referred to as ''paradigms'', which can be defined as a characteristic set of beliefs and preconceptions held by a scientific community including instrumental, theoretical, and metaphysical commitments all together.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962a)]][[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|pp. 293-319]] Kuhn himself confessed that he had confusingly used the term in several different senses.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|pp. 293-294]] In an attempt to clarify matters he sought to replace his broadest definition of the paradigm, given above, with the concept of ''disciplinary matrices'', defined as those shared elements that account for the relatively unproblematic professional communication and relative unanimity of professional judgment within a scientific community.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1977a)|p. 297]] For Kuhn, then, a theory of scientific change ought to deal with disciplinary matrices and their changes over time.
[[Larry Laudan]] also proposed a theory of scientific change, namely his reticulated model,[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] wherein there are scientific theories, scientific methods, and scientific values, all interdependent. In this model, the epistemic elements are theories, methods, and values, and this model posits that the values of the community are reflected in the methods, and the methods determine which theories become accepted. However, he also notes that the accepted theories influence which methods the community will employ, and can equally change the values of the community. In this respect, the reticulated model is a fully dynamic, covariant theory of scientific change wherein all epistemic elements influence one another. This was notably one of the first attempts at a theory of scientific change that included a dynamic method and acknowledged that such a dynamic method could itself be influenced by the theories that become accepted under it.
|History=Initially, the ontology of scientific change was posited in the ''Metatheory'' of ''[[Barseghyan (2015)|the LSC]]'' through the ''[[:Category:Definitional Topic|definition]]'' of [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] as a set of all accepted theories and employed methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 5]] According to this initial ontology, "at any moment of time, there are certain theories and certain methods employed in theory assessment".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.5]] In that ontology, [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]] were the only types of elements that undergo scientific change, while the class of theories only included [[Descriptive Theory|''descriptive theories'']]; [[Normative Theory|''normative theories'']] and [[Definition|''definitions'']] were left out of the ontology. Towards the end of 2016, it gradually became clear that the ontology of a field cannot and should not be postulated via definitions. What constitutes the elements of a certain ontology must be established by empirical research and, thus, is not a matter of definitions. In other words, the question of what constitutes the ontology of a certain field is a ''[[:Category:Descriptive Topic|descriptive question]]'', not definitional. Indeed, what sort of elements change during the process of scientific change is not something that should be decided by a definition, but should be formulated as a descriptive theory that says "Such-and-such elements undergo scientific change". In 2018, [[William Rawleigh]] argued that [[Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)|questions too are types of epistemic element]].[[CiteRef::Rawleigh (2018)]] When his suggested modification became accepted, the resulting ontology of epistemic elements included three basic elements: {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Ontology of Epistemic Elements (Rawleigh-2018).png}} Later that year, Barseghyan suggested a redrafted ontology where [[Method Is a Subtype of Normative Theory (Barseghyan-2018)|methods are considered a subtype of normative theory]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2018)]] In the resulting ontology, the two fundamental epistemic elements are [[Question Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Rawleigh-2018)|questions]] and [[Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)|theories]]. {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Ontology of Epistemic Elements (Barseghyan-2018).png}} In this ontology, theories can be of three types – [[Descriptive Theory|descriptive]], [[Normative Theory|normative]], or [[Definition|definitions]]. [[Method]] is understood as a subtype of normative theory. The ontology also posits that both questions and theories of all types – including methods – can be ''accepted''. Finally, the ontology suggests that normative theories of all types can be [[Norm Employment|''employed'']].
|Current View=
|Parent Topic=Ontology of Scientific Change
|Sorting Order=70
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{YouTube Video
|VideoID=oLWe6c3JV68
|VideoStartAt=730
|VideoDescription=Barseghyan present the the redrafted ontology
|VideoEmbedSection=History
}}