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
|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.
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.[[Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]] 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 ApprovedNotes=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
