Changes

{{Definitional Topic

|Author=Hakob Barseghyan,|Prehistory=In modern times philosophers have held a variety of views about how best to express the structure and content of scientific theories .[[CiteRef::Winther (20152016)]].

===Syntactical viewSyntactic View=== The syntactical view holds that the structure of a scientific theory can be captured by an axiomatized system of sentences. It is expressed in a metamathematical language that included predicate logic, set theory, and model theory .[[CiteRef::Winther (20152016)]]. In 1928 [[Rudolf Carnap ]] published his ''The Logical Structure of the World'', which put forward this view, which was central to logical empiricism .[[CiteRef::Andersen and Hepburn (2015)]]. [[Hans Reichenbach]], [[Otto Neurath]], [[Carl Hempel]], and [[Herbert Feigl ]] were also major contributors. The logical empiricist answer to the question of the structure of scientific theories was a family of related ideas rather than a single approach .[[CiteRef::Mormann (2008)]]. The view was so widely accepted in the early twentieth century that it is sometimes referred to as the received view [[CiteRef::Halvorson (2012)]].===Semantic view===The semantic view holds that the structure of a scientific theory can be expressed as a set of mathematical models, as models were defined by Alfred Tarski. It rejects the metamathematical language of the syntactic view [[CiteRef::Halvorson (2012)]], [[CiteRef::Winther (2015)]]. Some important models in science include the bag model of quark confinement, the hard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of the atom, the Gauss chain model of a polymer, the Lorentz model of the atmosphere, and the double helix model of DNA [[CiteRef::Frigg (2006)]]. Major proponents of the semantic view include John Von Neumann, who wrote on the subject in the thirties, Fredrick Suppe, and Bas Van Fraassen [[CiteRef::Winther (2015)]]. The semantic view emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s and became the dominant view in subsequent decades. John Ladyman used it in his formulation of structural realism in physics. The semantic view has played a major role in the philosophy of biology and psychology in recent decades [[CiteRef::Halvorson (2012)]].===Pragmatic view===The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of scientific theories entirely, and supposes that a theory necessarily consists of sentences, models, problems, standards, skills, practices, including such things as analogies, metaphors, and natural kinds, with its full characterization necessarily including elements that cannot be formalized [[CiteRef::Mormann(2008)]], [[CiteRef::Winther (2015)]]. Proponents of the pragmatic view include Nancy Cartwright, Ian Hacking, Phillip Kitcher, and Helen Longino.|History=The original definition of '''theory''' was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015. It defined a theory as any set of propositions that attempt to describe something.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] As such, this definition excluded normative propositions. It was eventually replaced by the definition suggested by Sebastien in 2016.|Current View=Currently, a '''theory''' is defined as a set of propositions that attempt to describe or prescribe something. Theories can be descriptive (e.g. natural, social, and formal science) or normative (e.g. methodology, ethics, and axiology)[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]]. They may be empirical or formal. They may have different levels of complexity and elaboration; they may consist of thousands of interconnected propositions or, in an extreme, of one single proposition. Examples include Einstein's theory of general relativity, the standard model in particle physics, or the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 3]].

For ===Semantic View===The semantic view holds that the purposes structure of a scientific theory can be expressed as a set of mathematical models, as models were defined by [[Alfred Tarski]]. It rejects the theory metamathematical language of scientific change the syntactic view.[[CiteRef::Halvorson (2012)]][[CiteRef::Winther (TSC2016)]] Some important models in science include the bag model of quark confinement, the hard ball model of a propositional view gas, the Bohr model of theories is adopted. This is because only propositions can have a truth value or be truth-likethe atom, and the acceptance and rejection Gauss chain model of theories is a core concern polymer, the Lorentz model of the TSC. While models may play a role in scientific practiceatmosphere, no part and the double helix model of a model may be accepted or rejected unless it can be stated propositionallyDNA. If something is not expressible propositionally[[CiteRef::Frigg (2006)]] Major proponents of the semantic view include [[John Von Neumann]], at least who wrote on the subject in principlethe thirties, it cannot have a truth value[[Fredrick Suppe]], and thus cannot be accepted or unaccepted as the best view of anything [[Bas Van Fraassen]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Winther (20152016)| p]] The semantic view emerged in the 1960’s and 1970’s and became the dominant view in subsequent decades. 4[[John Ladyman]]used it in his formulation of structural realism in physics. The semantic view has played a major role in the philosophy of biology and psychology in recent decades.[[FileCiteRef:Theory_Sebastien_2016_Definition.png|center|390px:Halvorson (2012)]] == Open Questions =Pragmatic View===• The TSC states that the choice pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of relevant facts is guided by our existing scientific theories. Is it also the case entirely, and supposes that questions/a theory necessarily consists of sentences, models, problems in science become relevant because of existing theories? (Nick Overgaard, Hakob Barseghyanstandards, skills, practices, including such things as analogies, metaphors, and natural kinds, with its full characterization necessarily including elements that cannot be formalized.[[CiteRef::Mormann (2008)]][[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] Proponents of the pragmatic view include [[Nancy Cartwright]], [[Ian Hacking]], [[Philip Kitcher]], and [[Helen Longino]].• Is it possible for |History=[[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)|The original definition]] of ''theory'' was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015. It defined a community theory as any set of propositions that attempt to say that they do not accept a theorydescribe something.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] As such, but in reality they do? this definition excluded normative propositions. In other wordsearly 2017, what is it was replaced by [[Theory (Sebastien-2016)|the status of ‘tacit knowledge’ definition]] suggested by Sebastien in the TSC? Can we find historical cases of situations like this? (Jaqueline Sereda, 2016).|Related Topics=Method, Scientific Mosaic, Law,|Page Status=Needs Editing}}{{Acceptance Record|Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From Year=2016|Accepted From Month=January|Accepted From Day=1|Accepted From Approximate=No|Still Accepted=Yes|Accepted Until Approximate=No