|
|
| (127 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | '''Theory of Scientific Change''' (TSC) is a descriptive theory that attempts to explain changes in a [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], i.e. transitions from one [[theory]] to the next and one [[method]] to the next. The current theory of scientific change explains many different aspects of the process such as [[The Second Law|theory acceptance]] and [[The Third Law|method employment]], [[The First Law|scientific inertia]] and [[The Zeroth Law|compatibility]], [[Mosaic Split and Merge|splitting and merging of scientific mosaics]], [[Scientific Underdeterminism|scientific underdeterminism]], [[Static and Dynamic Methods|changeability of scientific methods]], role of [[Sociocultural Factors|sociocultural factors]], and more.
| + | The original Theory of Scientific Change proposed by Barseghyan in 2015 is a set consisting of the following claims: |
| | | | |
| − | == Prehistory ==
| + | '''Definitions''' |
| − | <div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
| |
| − | Prehistory here
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| | | | |
| − | == History ==
| + | * [[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | The ''theory of scientific change'' (TSC) was proposed by Hakob Barseghyan in his book 'The Laws of Scientific Change', published in 2015. Since that time the work of Sebastian (2016) resolved an important logical paradox, allowing the scope of the TSC to be expanded to include descriptive accounts of normative theories as well as descriptive theories. Normative theories include such things as normative scientific methodologies and sets of ethical rules for the conduct of scientific research
| + | * [[Method (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Methodology (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scientific Change (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Mosaic Merge (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Acceptance Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Compatibility Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Demarcation Criteria (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Employed Method (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | | | |
| − | == Current View ==
| + | '''Ontology''' |
| − | ===What is the theory of scientific change?===
| |
| − | [[File:Scientific change.jpg|right|475px]]
| |
| − | The ''theory of scientific change (TSC)'' is a general descriptive social scientific theory of the actual process of [[Scientific_Change|''scientific change'']] stated in axiomatic deductive form. It is the founding theory of the new field of [[Scientonomy|scientonomy]]. It was proposed by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015 in his book 'The Laws of Scientific Change'.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Methods====
| + | * [[Theory Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | As in the later works of Larry Laudan (Laudan, 1984), the TSC rejects the idea of a fixed universal scientific method, and accepts the idea that the methods of science have changed over time. This rejection is based on clear evidence from the history of science that the methods of science have, in fact, changed (Barseghyan, 2015, p. 3-21). In contrast to most earlier views of the process of scientific change, TSC draws a clear distinction between methods, which are the implicit standards actually used in theory assessment, and the normative epistemic methodologies espoused by scientists or philosophers of science. The TSC takes normative methodological prescriptions to be outside its scope. It seeks a purely descriptive account of the methods employed by scientists to assess theories (Barseghyan, 2015, p. 12-21). Following the resolution of logical problems by Sebastian (2016), it also views the descriptive study of scientific methodologies, and their relationship to employed methods, as within its scope. The TSC rejects Kuhn (1977)and Laudan's (1984) distinction between values and methods, asserting that values can more parsimoniously be included within the category of methods. Thus, the value of predictive accuracy is instead seen as the method 'accept theories that are predictively accurate'.
| + | * [[Method Is a Subtype of Epistemic Element (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Descriptive Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Pursuit (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Epistemic Stances Towards Theories - Theory Use (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Acceptance Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Use Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Pursuit Is a Subtype of Epistemic Stance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | | | |
| − | ====Theory appraisal====
| + | '''Dynamics''' |
| − | The TSC draws a distinction between the process of scientific theory construction, in which new theories are generated or constructed, and that of theory appraisal, in which theories are evaluated by a scientific community. It seeks a descriptive account of the process of theory appraisal, but does not view the process of theory construction as a necessary part of its scope (Barseghyan, 2015, p. 21-30). Unlike past usage, the TSC seeks a clear technical vocabulary to categorize the stances that a scientific community can take towards a theory. It proposes three categories: acceptance, use, and pursuit. A theory is said to be ''accepted'' if it is taken to be the best available description of its object. A theory is said to be ''used'' if it is taken to be an adequate tool for practical application, and to be ''pursued'' if it is considered worthy of further development (Barseghyan, 2015, p. 30-42).
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Level of social organization====
| + | * [[The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | [[File:Individual and group.jpg|right|500px]] | + | * [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | Rather than individual scientists, the TSC focuses primarily on the behavior of scientific communities. A scientific community consists of individual scientists and their interactions with one another. Past research in the history of science has often focused on prominent individual scientists. The beliefs and decisions of individual scientists are diverse and the relationship between their behavior and that of a scientific community is by no means obvious. Scientific change takes place at the level of the community, when a community as a whole decides to accept a new theory, or employ a new method. This is the reason why the TSC focuses at this level(Barseghyan, 2015, p. 43-52). It seeks distinctive historical research methods, such as the analysis of textbooks and encyclopedias, as indicators of the accepted beliefs of a scientific community(Barseghyan, 2015, p. 113-120).
| + | * [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Theory Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Synchronism of Method Rejection theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Contextual Appraisal theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Dogmatism No Theory Change theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Methodology Can Shape Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)]] |
| | | | |
| − | ====Time, fields, and scale====
| + | '''Second Order''' |
| − | The TSC seeks to account for the process of scientific change during all historical time periods within which a corpus of accepted scientific beliefs existed. It seeks to account for this entire corpus of beliefs. The TSC defines "science" broadly. For example, during the medieval and early modern period, propositions about the natural world and about theological matters were considered part of the same system of beliefs. For those time periods, the TSC takes theological beliefs to be within its purview (Barseghyan, 2015, p. 61-72).
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Basic tenets of the theory====
| + | * [[The Second Law (Barseghyan-2015) is Tautological (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | The TSC begins by positing the existence of a [[Scientific_Mosaic|''scientific mosaic'']] consisting of the accepted [[Theory|''theories'']] and employed [[Method|''methods'']] of a scientific community at some particular time in history. Scientific change is the process by which the contents of the mosaic are altered over time. The TSC posits four laws as its axioms which together account for changes to both theories and methods. These are, The Zeroth Law: The law of compatibility, The First Law: The law of scientific inertia, The Second Law: The law of theory acceptance, and The Third Law: The law of method employment. These laws are summarized briefly here, and are expounded at greater length in their respective encyclopedia articles. A number of theorems have been deduced from these basic laws and they are also summarized here.
| |
| | | | |
| − | === Axioms ===
| + | '''Metatheory''' |
| − | The TSC posits four laws as axioms governing the process of change to the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]].
| |
| − | ====Zeroth Law: The Law of Compatibility====
| |
| − | The [[The_Zeroth_Law|''Zeroth Law'']], also known as the ''Law of Compatibility'' states that at any moment in time, the elements of the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] are compatible with one another. The compatibility criteria are part of the [[Method|method]] of the time.
| |
| − | [[File: The_Zeroth_Law.png |center|350px]]
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====First Law: The Law of Scientific Inertia====
| + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | The ''[[The_First_Law|First Law]]'', also known as the ''Law of Scientific Inertia'' states that an element of the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] remains in the mosaic unless replaced by other elements. Replacement takes place in accordance with the Second and Third Laws.
| + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - Appraisal (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | [[File:First-law-general.jpg|center|250px]] | + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - Social (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - All Fields (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - All Scales (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Scope of Scientonomy - All Time Periods (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | | | |
| − | ====Second Law: The Law of Theory Acceptance====
| + | * [[Response to the Argument from Changeability of Scientific Method (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | The ''[[The_Second_Law|Second Law]]'', also known as the ''Law of Theory Acceptance'' states that in order to become accepted into the [[Scientific_Mosaic|scientific mosaic]], a [[Theory|theory]] is assessed by the [[Method|method]] actually employed at the time.
| + | * [[Response to the Argument from Nothing Permanent (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | [[File: The_Second_Law.png |center|275px]] | + | * [[Response to the Argument from Bad Track Record (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | + | * [[Response to the Argument from Social Construction (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| | | | |
| − | ====Third Law: The Law of Method Employment====
| + | * [[Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)]] |
| − | The ''Third Law'', also known as the ''Law of Method Employment'' states that a [[Method|method]] becomes employed when it is deducible from other employed [[Method|methods]] and accepted [[Theory|theories]] of the time.
| |
| − | [[File:The_Third_Law.png|center|325px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Theorems ===
| |
| − | Taking the four laws as the starting point several theorems about the process of scientific change may be deduced.
| |
| − | ====Rejection of Elements====
| |
| − | We can deduce several theorems from the four laws of scientific change that have to do with the rejection of theories or methods.
| |
| − | =====Dogmatism theorem=====
| |
| − | No theory acceptance may take place in a genuinely dogmatic community. Suppose a community has an accepted theory that asserts that it is the final and absolute truth. By the Third Law we deduce the method: accept no new theories ever. By the Second Law we deduce that no new theory can ever be accepted by the employed method of the time. By the First Law, we deduce that the accepted theory will remain the accepted theory forever.
| |
| − | [[File:Dogmatism-theorem.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Theory rejection theorem=====
| |
| − | A theory becomes rejected only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. By the First Law for theories, an accepted theory will remain accepted until it is replaced by other theories. By the Zeroth Law, the elements of the scientific mosaic must be compatible with one another. Thus, a theory can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible theory of theories.
| |
| − | [[File:theory-rejection-theorem.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====Method rejection theorem=====
| |
| − | A method ceases to be employed only when other methods that are incompatible with it become employed. By the First Law for methods, an employed method will remain employed until it is replaced by other methods. By the Zeroth Law, the elements of the scientific mosaic must be compatible with one another. Thus, a method can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible method or methods.
| |
| − | [[File:method-rejection-theorem.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | =====synchronism of method rejection theorem=====
| |
| − | A method becomes rejected only when some of the theories, from which it follows, become rejected.
| |
| − | [[File:Synchronism-of-method-rejection.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Contextual Appraisal====
| |
| − | [[File:Contextual-appraisal.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | ====Scientific Underdeterminism====
| |
| − | =====Underdetermined method change=====
| |
| − | [[File:Underdetermined-method-change.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | =====Underdetermined theory change=====
| |
| − | [[File:Underdetermined-theory-change.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | =====Scientific underdeterminism=====
| |
| − | [[File:Scientific-underdetermination.jpg|center|550px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ====Mosaic Split and Mosaic Merge====
| |
| − | [[File:Necessary-mosaic-split.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | [[File:Possible-mosaic-split.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | ====Static and Dynamic Methods====
| |
| − | [[File:Dynamic-substantive-methods.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | [[File:Static-procedural-methods.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | ====Necessary Elements====
| |
| − | [[File:non-empty-mosaic-theorem.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | [[File:necessary-method-theorem.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | ====Sociocultural Factors====
| |
| − | [[File:social-factors-theorem.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | ====The role of Methodology====
| |
| − | [[File:methodology-shapes-method.jpg|center|500px]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Open Questions ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | • Question 1
| |
| − | | |
| − | • Question 2
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Related Articles ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Scientific Mosaic]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Scientonomy]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Scientific Change]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Zeroth Law]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[First Law]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Second Law]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Third Law]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Notes ==
| |
| − | <references />
| |
