editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 18:57, 24 February 2023
, 18:57, 24 February 2023no edit summary
According to ''the synchronism of method rejection theorem'', a [[Method|method]] becomes rejected only when some of the [[Theory|theories]] from which it follows become rejected. By the method rejection theorem, a method is rejected when other methods incompatible with it become employed. By the [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|Third Law]], this can happen only when some of the theories from which it follows are also rejected.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 177-183]]
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Implementation of an Abstract Methodabstract methodd
|Description=[[Barseghyan (2015)]] introduces the '''synchronism of method rejection theorem''' through the following hypothetical example.
What is interesting from our perspective is that these different implementations are compatible with each other – they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a researcher can pick any one of these methods, for these different concrete methods are connected with a logical OR. Thus, the number of cells is acceptable if it is counted by means of a counting chamber, or a flow cytometer, or a spectrophotometer. The measured value is acceptable provided that it satisfies the requirements of at least one of these methods ... To generalize the point, different implementations of the same abstract method cannot possibly be in conflict with each other, for any concrete method is a logical consequence of some conjunction of the abstract method and one or another accepted theory (by ''the third law'').[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 175-6]]</blockquote>
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Transition from the blind trial method to the double-blind trial method
|Description=As Barseghyan notes, it can be tempting to say that the ''double blind trial method'' replaced ''the blind trial method''. But this is not a correct explication of the method dynamics at play. Barseghyan provides a correct explanation of what happened here:
<blockquote>To be sure, ''the blind trial method'' was replaced in the mosaic, but not by ''the double-blind trial method''. Rather, it was replaced by the abstract requirement that when assessing a drug’s efficacy one must take into account the possible experimenter’s bias. The employment of ''the double-blind trial method ''was due to the fact that it specified this abstract requirement. Its employment ''per se'' had nothing to do with the rejection of the blind trial method.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 178]]</blockquote>
He continues his explanation with a closer look at the ''blind trial method'':
<blockquote>Recall ''the blind trial method'' which required that a drug’s efficacy is to be shown in a trial with two groups of patients, where the active group is given the real pill, while the control group is given a placebo. Implicit in ''the blind trial method'' was a clause that it is ok if the researchers know which group is which. This clause was based on the tacit assumption that the researchers’ knowledge cannot affect the patients and, thus, cannot void the results of the trial. Although this assumption was hardly ever expressed, it is safe to say that it was taken for granted – we would allow the researchers to know which group of patients is which until we learned about the phenomenon of experimenter’s bias ... Once we learned about the possibility of experimenter’s bias, the blind trial method became instantly rejected. More precisely, the acceptance of the ''experimenter’s bias thesis'' immediately resulted in the abstract requirement that, when assessing a drug’s efficacy, one must take the possibility of the experimenter’s bias into account. Consequently, two elements of the mosaic became rejected: the blind trial method and the tacit assumption that the experimenters’ knowledge doesn’t affect the patients and cannot void the results of trials ...
Now, ''the experimenter’s bias thesis'' yielded the new abstract requirement to take into account the possible experimenter’s bias. This requirement, in turn, replaced the blind trial method with which it was incompatible (by the method rejection theorem).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 178-80]] </blockquote>
Therefore, Barseghyan concludes, "the double-blind trial method had nothing to do with the rejection of the blind trial method. By the time the double-blind trial method became employed, the blind trial method had already been rejected. So even if we had never devised the double-blind trial method, the blind trial method would have been rejected all the same".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 180]] In summary, "the rejection of the blind trial method took place synchronously with the rejection of the theory on which it was based".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 180]] Hence, this is a historical example of the ''synchronism of method rejection theorem''.
|Example Type=Historical
}}