Changes

|Authors List=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 (2016)]] ===Syntactic 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 (2016)]] 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)]]

===Syntactical 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 (2015)]]. 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 viewView===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 (20152016)]]. 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 (20152016)]]. 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 the purposes of the theory ===Pragmatic View===The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of scientific change (TSC), a propositional view of theories is adopted. This is because only propositions can have a truth value or be truth-likeentirely, and the acceptance and rejection of theories is supposes that a core concern theory necessarily consists of the TSC. While sentences, models may play a role in scientific practice, no part of a model may be accepted or rejected unless it can be stated propositionally. If something is not expressible propositionallyproblems, standards, skills, practices, at least in principleincluding such things as analogies, it cannot have a truth valuemetaphors, and thus natural kinds, with its full characterization necessarily including elements that cannot be accepted or unaccepted as the best view of anything formalized.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Mormann (20152008)| p. 4]].[[FileCiteRef:Theory_Sebastien_2016_Definition:Winther (2016)]] Proponents of the pragmatic view include [[Nancy Cartwright]], [[Ian Hacking]], [[Philip Kitcher]], and [[Helen Longino]].png|centerHistory=[[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)|390pxThe original definition]]== Open Questions ==• The TSC states that the choice of relevant facts is guided ''theory'' was proposed by our existing theoriesBarseghyan in 2015. Is it also the case It defined a theory as any set of propositions that questions/problems in science become relevant because of existing theories? attempt to describe something.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (Nick Overgaard2015)]] As such, Hakob Barseghyanthis definition excluded normative propositions. In early 2017, it was replaced by [[Theory (Sebastien-2016)• Is it possible for a community to say that they do not accept a theory, but in reality they do? In other words, what is |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