Changes

{{NonDefinitionTheory|Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment

|Formulation FileObject=The Third Law Barseghyan 2015.png|Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment

|Formulation File=The Third Law Barseghyan 2015.png|Description=Barseghyan's formulation of the third law states that a [[Method|method]] becomes [[Employed Method Employment|employed]] only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted [[Theory|theories]] of the time."Essentially," Barseghyan writes, "the third law stipulates that our accepted theories shape our employed methods".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 132]]

In a nutshell, this suggests that [[Theory Acceptance|accepted theories]] shape the set of [[Employed Method Employment|implicit criteria employed]] in theory assessment.

The evolution third law does not stipulate how methods should go about specifying any new abstract requirement. The third law functions as a descriptive account of the drug trial how methods change, and is not responsible for describing how methods ought to change. As such, it is an example effective means of explicating the requirements of other employed methods. The third law in actionhas an important corollary: scientific change is not necessarily a ''synchronous '' process, which notably differs from Kuhn's view of scientific change as a ''wholesale,'' ''synchronous'' process.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. For example, 151]] This corollary is known as the discovery [[Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]].|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)|Prehistory=The basic idea of ''the placebo effect in drug testing demonstrates third law'' is not new. A number of philosophers have suggested that fake treatment our beliefs about the world shape how we engage with the world. Different versions of this idea can cause improvement be found in patient symptoms. As a result of its discovery the abstract requirement works of “when assessing a drug’s efficacy[[Thomas Kuhn]], the possible placebo effect must be taken into account” was generated. This abstract requirement is[[Paul Feyerabend]], by definition[[Dudley Shapere]], an accepted theory which stipulates that[[Larry Laudan]], if ignored, substantial doubt would be cast on any and [[Ernan McMullin]]. Most noteworthy is [[Larry Laudan]]’s account of changes in drug trialmethods. As a result of this new theoryIn his ''Science and Values'', Laudan argued that the Single-Blind Trial method was devised. The currently employed method discovery of previously unaccounted effects resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing is the Double.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-Blind Trial39]] However, a method which specifies all while Laudan’s account hints at aspects of ''the abstract requirements of its predecessors. It is an apt illustration of how new methods are generated through the acceptance of new theoriesthird law'', as well as how new it ultimately conflates [[Method|methods employ the abstract requirements of their predecessors]] and [[Methodology|methodologies]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 132130-152131]]

{{#evt[[Ernan McMullin]]’s accounts of historical methods offer another example of a prototype of ''the third law''. McMullin showed how the hypothetico-deductive method came to replace the Aristotelian Medieval method in the 18th century. In his account, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::McMullin (1988)|p. 32-34]] These accounts demonstrate how our accepted theories impact our criteria of theory assessment.service=youtube|id=BBBxJ8yYrsgThere have been many other attempts at explicating the way in which methods change, such as the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]], or the proposal of synchronous change in paradigm shifts by [[Thomas Kuhn]]. Nevertheless, according to Barseghyan, "what we have had so far is a picture from a bird’s eye perspective. What we lack is the knowledge of the actual mechanism: how exactly can accepted theories shape employed methods?".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|urlargs=start=253p. 133]]|alignmentHistory=rightBarseghyan's formulation of the third law was the first attempt to address the problem of method employment in the scientonomic context.|descriptionPage Status=The third law explained by Hakob BarseghyanEditor Approved|containerEditor Notes=frame Great job, Izzy!

The Barseghyan presents the example of testing a new drug for alleviating depression to as an example of the third law does not stipulate how and in answer to these questions. In summary, the evolution of the drug trial methods should go about specifying any new abstract requirement. The is an example of the third law functions as in action. For example, the discovery of the placebo effect in drug testing demonstrates that fake treatment can cause improvement in patient symptoms. As a descriptive account result of how methods changeits discovery the abstract requirement of “when assessing a drug’s efficacy, and the possible placebo effect must be taken into account” was generated. This abstract requirement is not responsible for describing how methods ought to change, by definition, an accepted theory which stipulates that, if ignored, substantial doubt would be cast on any trial. As sucha result of this new theory, it the Single-Blind Trial method was devised. The currently employed method in drug testing is an effective means the Double-Blind Trial, a method which specifies all of explicating the abstract requirements of other employed methodsits predecessors. The Aristotelian-Medieval method It is one such example an apt illustration of how new methods are generated through the acceptance of new theories, as well as how new methods employ the abstract requirements of its utilitytheir predecessors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp.132-152]]

In Barseghyan’s explication of Specifically, Barseghyan begins with the Aristotelian-Medieval method, he illustrates how Aristotelian natural philosophy impacted question "How can we ensure that the method of improvement was due to the time. Most notable drug itself and not due to other unaccounted factors?" The question is answered by the acceptance implementation of teleology – a theory which states that every thing has ''controlled trial'', wherein "we organize a nature it seeks to fulfill (etrial with two groups of patients with the same condition – the active group and the control group.gOnly the patients in the active group receive the drug". an acorn’s nature is to become an oak tree[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. It stood 134]]<blockquote>What we have here is a transition from one method to reason that another triggered by a new piece of knowledge about the nature of a thing can only be intuitively grasped by an experienced personworld. This fundamental belief generated a The initial method which specifies these requirements known as was something along the Aristotelianlines of hypothetico-Medieval method, deductivism: we had a hypothesis “the drug is effective in alleviating depression” and is an illustration of how employed methods are deductive consequences of we wanted to confirm it experimentally. Once we learnt that the accepted theories of the timealleviation may be due to other factors, our initial method was modified to require that a drug’s efficacy must be tested in a controlled trial.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.134]]</blockquote>

The third law has also proven useful Another transition in method occurred when upon the discovery of the ''placebo effect'', or the fact "that the improvement in explicating such requirements as Confirmed Novel Predictions patients’ condition can be due to the patients’ belief that the treatment will improve their condition".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (CNP2015)|p. According 135]] Now,<blockquote>it was no longer sufficient to have two groups of patients. If only one of the two groups received the drug then the resulting positive effect could be due to the patients’ belief that the hypothetico-deductive method, a theory which challenges our accepted ontology must provide CNP drug was really efficient in order alleviating their condition. The solution was to become acceptedorganize a ''blind trial.'' We take two groups of patients with the condition, but this time we make sure that both groups of patients believe that they undergo treatment. However, only the history patients of CNP has been the active group receive the real drug; to the patients in the control group we give a point placebo (fake treatment).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 135]]</blockquote>Once again, Barseghyan writes, "this is an instance of confusion for some timea method change brought about by a change in accepted theories".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. By 135]]  <blockquote>But why are we forced to introduce this new requirement to our method of drug testing? Well, because this new requirement follows deductively from two elements of the Third Law, one can show mosaic – from our knowledge that the results of testing a hypothesis about a drug’s efficacy may be voided by the placebo effect and from a more fundamental requirement of CNP has not always been expected of new theoriesthat we must accept only the best available hypotheses.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. When Newton published his Principia137]]</blockquote> Notably, CNP were not a "while the new requirement of his professed is abstract (“the possible placebo effect must be taken into account”), the blind trial methodis concrete, yet they were still providedfor it prescribes how exactly the testing should be done. On Thus, ''the blind trial method'' specifies the other hand, Clark’s law of diminishing returns had no such predictionsnew abstract requirement. This is because Newton’s proposal the relation of ''implementation'': a more concrete method implements the requirements of unobservable entitiesa more abstract method by making them more concrete".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 138]] That is, such as gravity and absolute space, challenged ''the blind trial method'' is not the accepted ontology only possible ''implementation'' of the time, while Clark’s simply accounted for abstract requirement to take the data already availableplacebo effect into account.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. Thus138]] In Barseghyan's words, in utilizing "the Third Law, one same abstract requirement can discover both have many different implementations".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 139]]  A final change in method occurred when certain criteria become an implicit rule and under what conditions ''experimenter's bias'' was discovered:<blockquote>The researchers that are in contact with patients can give patients conscious or unconscious hints as to which group is which. It is possible that the positive effect of the drug established in a blind trial was due to the fact that the patients in the placebo group knew that they are necessarywere given a placebo. The method of drug testing was modified yet again to reflect this newly discovered phenomenon. The contemporary approach is to perform a double-blind trial where neither patients nor researchers know which group is which.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp.135-136]]</blockquote>  {{PrintDiagramFile|Resourcediagram file=Double Blind Trial Deduction (Barseghyan (-2015-139).png}}  The ''double-blind trial method'' is a further example of the relation of ''implementation''.|PrehistoryExample Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=The basic idea of Double-Blind Trial Method (Two Scenarios for Method Employment)|Description=As Barseghyan explains, ''the third lawdouble-blind trial method'' "is not newbased on our belief that by performing a double-blind trial we forestall the chance of unaccounted effects, placebo effect, and experimenter’s bias".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. A number 141]]  The propositions that this premise is based on in turn derive from theories that are acecpted; for example, "our belief that a trial with two similar groups minimizes the chance of philosophers have suggested unaccounted effects follows from our knowledge about statistical regularities, i.e. from our belief that two statistically similar groups can be expected to behave similarly ''ceteris paribus''".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]] Similarly, our beliefs about knowledge of physiology and psychology lead to our understanding that we can void the world shape how we engage placebo effect with the worldfake pills.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. Different versions 142]] Our knowledge of this idea psychology allows us to understand that researchers can be found in the works bias patients from their own knowledge of which group is which.[[Thomas KuhnCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]]Clearly, these premises, although trivial, are currently accepted within our scientific mosaic.[[Paul FeyerabendCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]]Hence, the ''double-blind trial method'', although an ''implementation'' of abstract requirements, is still based on our currently accepted theories. This is true in all scenarios of ''implementation''.[[Dudley ShapereCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]] Thus, methods follow deductively from elements of the mosaic whether they follow strictly from theories and methods or implement abstract requirements. This is an important similarity between the two scenarios for method employment.|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Aristotelian-Medieval Method|Description=In Barseghyan’s explication of the Aristotelian-Medieval method, he illustrates how Aristotelian natural philosophy impacted the method of the time.[[Larry LaudanCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 143]]Most notable is the acceptance of teleology – a theory which states that every thing has a nature it seeks to fulfill (e.g. an acorn’s nature is to become an oak tree). The best theories, then, would uncover the nature of a thing. If only the best theories are acceptable, and this leads to the abstract requirement that "A theory is acceptable only if it grasps the nature of a thing". It stood to reason that the nature of a thing can only be intuitively grasped by an experienced person. This fundamental belief, combined with the abstract requirement outline above, led to a method which specifies these requirements known as the Aristotelian-Medieval method: "A proposition is acceptable if it grasps the nature of a thing through intuition schooled by experience, or if it is deduced from general intuitive propositions".[[Ernan McMullinCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 145]]This is an illustration of how employed methods are deductive consequences of the accepted theories of the time.|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Confirmed Novel Predictions|Description=The ''third law'' has also proven useful in explicating such requirements as Confirmed Novel Predictions (CNP).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp.146-150]]

Most noteworthy is [[Larry Laudan]]’s account According to the hypothetico-deductive method, a theory which challenges our accepted ontology must provide CNP in order to become accepted. However, the history of CNP has been a point of changes in drug trial methodsconfusion for some time. In his ''Science and Values''By the Third Law, Laudan argued one can show that the discovery requirement of CNP has not always been expected of new theories. When Newton published his Principia (~1740), CNP were not a requirement of previously unaccounted effects resulted his professed method, yet they were still provided. This is also true in the formulation cases of new methods Fresnel's wave theory of drug testinglight (~1820), Einstein's general relativity (~1920), continental drift theory (1960s), and electroweak unification (1970s).[[CiteRef::Laudan Barseghyan (19842015)|ppp. 38-39146]] However On the other hand, while Laudan’s account hints at aspects Clark’s law of diminishing returns (1900) had no such predictions. They also played no role in the acceptance of Mayer's lunar theory (1760s), Coulomb's inverse square law (early 1800s), the third law''three laws of thermodynamics (1850s), it ultimately conflates [[Method|methods]] and quantum mechanics (1927).[[MethodologyCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|methodologiesp. 146]] Barseghyan explains that this indicates that is because "we do expect confirmed novel predictions but only in very special circumstances. There was one common characteristic in all those episodes… they all altered our views on the structural elements of the world".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 130-131146]]For instance, in our key examples, Newton’s proposal of unobservable entities, such as gravity and absolute space, challenged the ''accepted ontology'' of the time, while Clark’s simply accounted for the data already available.

Ernan McMullin’s accounts of Barseghyan presents his historical methods offer another example of a prototype hypothesis that this specific requirement for CNP has been employed in natural science since the 18th century. Assuming he is correct (for the sake of argument), he continues: "The ''the third law''. McMullin showed how stipulates that the implicit method used by Galileo requirement of confirmed novel predictions could become employed only if it was at odds with a deductive consequence of the method he professed to use accepted theories and that which was actually other employed at methods of the time. So a question arises: what theories and methods does this requirement follow from?".[[CiteRef::Allen Barseghyan (19882015)|pp. 147-148]]

FurthermoreBarseghyan answers the question with two principles. For one, there is a principle, McMullin showed how the hypothetico-deductive method came to replace the Aristotelian Medieval method implicit in our contemporary mosaic and accepted since the 18th eighteenth century. In his account, McMullin shows that the employment of the hypothetico-deductivism was a result of accepting that states: "the world is more complex than it appears in our observations, that there is more to the world than meets the eye".[[CiteRef::McMullin Barseghyan (19882015)|ppp. 148]] Thus, observations may not tell the whole story, as what we observe may an effect of an unobservable. Secondly, "it has been accepted since the early eighteenth century that, in principle, any phenomenon can be produced by an infinite number of different underlying mechanisms". 32-34[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.148]] These accounts demonstrate how our accepted theories impact our implicit requirements for investigating "This leads us to the worldthesis of underdetermination that, in principle, any finite body of evidence can be explained in an infinite number of ways".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.148]] Therefore:

There have been many <blockquote> The abstract requirement that follows from these two principles is that whenever we assess a theory that introduces some new internal mechanisms (new types of sub-stances, particles, forces, fields, interaction, processes etc.) we must take into account that this hypothesized internal mechanism may turn out to be fictitious even if it manages to predict the known phenomena with utmost precision. In other attempts at explicating words, we ddo not tolerate "fiddling" with the way in which methods change, such as ''accepted ontology;'' if a theory attemptes to modify the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by David Lindbergaccepted ontology, or the proposal of synchronous change in paradigm shifts by Thomas Kuhnit must show that it is not cooked-up.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.148]]</blockquote>|History=BarseghyanThis abstract requirement can then be implemented in several ways, including through our contemporary requirement of ''confirmed novel predictions''s formulation . This is an illustration of the third law was the first attempt to address the problem second scenario of method employment . Thus, in utilizing the scientonomic contextthird law, one can discover both when certain criteria become an implicit rule and under what conditions they are necessary.|Example Type=Historical

|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]]. Since then, [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|attempts]] have been made to replace this law,[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] which is a very good indicator of theory acceptance.|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Approximate=No}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Temp|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=February|Accepted From Day=2|Accepted From Approximate=No

|Accepted Until Month=JuneJanuary|Accepted Until Day=421

|Rejection Indicators=Barseghyan's formulation The law became rejected as a result of the third law was the first attempt to address the problem acceptance of method employment in the scientonomic context. BarseghyanSebastien's [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|new formulation of the third law was the first attempt Third Law]]. For details, refer to address the problem of method employment in [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|the scientonomic contextmodification]].