Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 21:13, 14 March 2018
, 21:13, 14 March 2018no edit summary
|Title=The Second Law
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=In order to become accepted into the mosaic, a theory is assessed by the method actually employed at the time.
|Formulation File=The Second Law Barseghyan 2015.png
|Topic=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Description={{#evt:service=youtube|id=BBBxJ8yYrsg|urlargs=start=2034|alignment=right|description=The second law explained by Hakob Barseghyan|container=frame }}According to the law, in order to become accepted, a theory is assessed by the [[Method|method]] employed at the time by the [[Scientific Community|scientific community]] in question.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.129]] The key idea behind the second law is that theories are evaluated by the criteria employed by the community at the time of the evaluation. Thus, different communities employing different method of evaluation can end up producing different assessment outcomes.
Since it follows from the definition of [[Employed Method|''employed method'']] (a set of implicit rules actually employed in theory assessment), this formulation of the second law is viewed as a tautology. Thus, a theory may violate the [[Methodology|methodology]] to which a [[Scientific Community|scientific community]] explicitly subscribes, but not the actually employed method - a fact true by definition.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=In his 'Structure of Scientific Revolutions'[[CiteRef::Kuhn (19621962a)]], [[Thomas Kuhn]] supposed that theories, methods, and values formed integrated units which he called paradigms. Kuhn's holism lead him to view scientific change as a kind of gestalt shift, seemingly involving a non-rational leap of faith. Critics charged him with attributing scientific change to "mob psychology". Later, he suggested that scientists are guided by epistemic values in making such choices. He supposed these values were fixed through history [[CiteRef::Kuhn (19771977a)]].
Past philosophers of science have generally failed to provide a definitive answer concerning the existence of a mechanism that governs transitions from one accepted theory to the next. In regard to theory acceptance, they have often failed to clearly distinguish between "[[Method|method]]" and "[[Methodology|methodology]]"[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 52-61]].
Both [[Rudolph Rudolf Carnap]] and [[Karl Popper]] realized the beginnings of a distinction between method and methodology by recognizing that it is the implicit method of a scientific community that is employed in theory assessment instead of its explicit prescriptions. [[Larry Laudan]] also tacitly acknowledged the distinction within his reticulated model by showing that the accepted rules of scientific practice (methodology) were at odds with the actual scientific practice of the time (method)[[CiteRef::Laudan (19841984a)]]. However, he then goes on to explicitly criticize a similar distinction accepted by Lakatos and Worrall.
There has also been a fierce debate among philosophers of science over the status of novel predictions. While, Popper, [[Imre Lakatos|Lakatos]] and Musgrave argued for a special status of novel predictions, Hempel, Carnap, and Laudan maintained that, as far as criteria for theory goes, there is no substantial difference between the value of novel predictions and post factual explanations of known facts. Nonetheless, some philosophers have used the lack of novel predictions in past historical episodes as a way to argue against the idea that theories are always accepted when they meet the criteria of the employed method. However this argument is unsound because it assumes that the hypothetico-deductive method was employed in every historical case.
|History=This was the original formulation of the second law proposed by Barseghyan in [[Barseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']]. [[Scientonomy Seminar|Seminar]] discussions revealed the law's two major flaws. First, it didn't clearly indicate what happened to a theory when a certain [[Theory Assessment Outcomes|assessment outcome]] obtained. Specifically, it didn't link theory assessment outcomes to the theory's acceptance or unacceptance. Secondly, the law sounded like a tautology which is not what a good law should sound like. Consequently, in 2017, a new formulation of the law was suggested by Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan, which became accepted towards the end of that year and, thus, replaced the initial formulation.[[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=The prehistory section is too broad. It gives a general prehistory of the TOPIC, rather than a prehistory of the THEORY. This section should credit only those philosophers who understood that theories are being evaluated by the method OF THE TIME.
}}
{{YouTube Video
|VideoID=BBBxJ8yYrsg
|VideoStartAt=2034
|VideoDescription=The second law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
|VideoEmbedSection=Description
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Month=January
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=YesNo
|Acceptance Indicators=The law 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=YesNo|Accepted Until Era=CE|Accepted Until Year=2017|Accepted Until Month=November|Accepted Until Day=29
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=The law became rejected as a result of the acceptance of [[The Second Law (Patton-Overgaard-Barseghyan-2017)|the new formulation of the Second Law]] by Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan. For details, refer to [[Modification:Sciento-2017-0004|the modification]].
}}
