editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 17:58, 24 February 2023
, 17:58, 24 February 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|Topic=Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Rejection
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem
|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, also become rejected.
|Formulation FileObject=Synchronism-of-method-rejection-box-only.jpg|Topic=Synchronism vs. Asynchronism of Method Rejection
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Synchronism-of-method-rejection-box-only.jpg|Description=The principle of this theorem is first introduced in [[Barseghyan (2015)]]. We recall that "there are two somewhat distinct scenarios of method employment. In the first scenario, a method becomes employed when it strictly follows from newly accepted theories. In the second scenario, a method becomes employed when it implements the abstract requirements of some other employed method by means of other accepted theories. It can be shown that method rejection is only possible in the first scenario; no method can be rejected in the second scenario. Namely, it can be shown that method rejection can only take place when some other method becomes employed by strictly following from a new accepted theory; the employment of a method that is not a result of the acceptance of a new theory and is merely a new implementation of some already employed method cannot possibly lead to a method rejection."[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 174]] As per Barseghyan, it is important to note that "two implementations of the same method are not mutually exclusive and the employment of one doesn’t lead to the rejection of the other".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 176]] Barseghyan illustrates this nicely with the example of cell-counting methods (see below). Furthermore, he writes, "an employment of a new concrete method cannot possibly lead to a rejection of any other employed method. Indeed, if we take into account the fact that a new concrete method follows deductively from the conjunction of an abstract method and other accepted theories, it will become obvious that this new concrete method cannot possibly be incompatible with any other element of the mosaic. We know from the ''zeroth law'' that at any stage the elements of the mosaic are compatible with each other. Therefore, no logical consequence of the mosaic can possibly be incompatible with other elements of the mosaic. But the new method that implemented the abstract method is just one such logical consequence".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 176-7]] 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]]
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Synchronism-of-method-rejection.jpg}}
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=
|History=
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Implementation of an Abstract Method
|Description=[[Barseghyan (2015)]] introduces the '''synchronism of method rejection theorem''' through the following hypothetical example.
<blockquote>Let us start with the following case. Suppose there is a new method that implements the requirements of a more abstract method which has been in the mosaic for a while. By the third law, the new method becomes employed in the mosaic.
Question: what happens to the abstract method implemented by the new method?
The answer is that the abstract method necessarily maintains its place in the mosaic. By the method rejection theorem, a method gets rejected only when it is replaced by some other method which is incompatible with it. But it is obvious that our new method cannot possibly be in conflict with the old method. This is not difficult to show. To say that the new method implements the abstract requirements of the old abstract method is the same as to say that the new method follows from the conjunction of the abstract method and some accepted theories. Yet, if we consider the two methods in isolation, we will be convinced that the abstract ''Method 1'' is a logical consequence of the new ''Method 2''. (When ''Method 2'' implements the requirements of ''Method 1'', ''Method 1'' is necessarily a logical consequence of ''Method 2''.)
To rephrase the point, if a theory satisfies the more concrete requirements of ''Method 2'', it also necessarily satisfies the more abstract requirements of ''Method 1''.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 174-5]]</blockquote>
This hypothetical illustration aligns well with the historical example of the ''abstract requirement to take the placebo effect into account'' being implemented through the ''blind trial method'':
<blockquote>Recall, for instance, the abstract requirement that, when assessing a drug’s efficacy, the placebo effect must be taken into account. Recall also its implementation – the blind trial method. It is evident that when the more concrete requirements of the blind trial method are satisfied, the more abstract requirement to take into account the possibility of the placebo effect is satisfied as well. This is because the abstract requirement is a logical consequence of the blind trial method: by testing a drug’s efficacy in a blind trial, we thus take into account the possible placebo effect.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan(2015)|p. 175]]<blockquote>
|Example Type=Hybrid
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Cell Counting: What happens when the same abstract requirement gets implemented by several concrete methods?
|Description=Barseghyan answers this question using the following historical example:
<blockquote>Once we understood that the unaided human eye is incapable of obtaining data about extremely minute objects (such as cells or molecules), we were led to an employment of the abstract requirement that the counted number of cells is acceptable only if it is acquired with an “aided” eye. This abstract requirement has many different implementations such as ''the counting chamber method'', ''the plating method'', ''the flow cytometry method'', and ''the spectrophotometry method''.
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
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
