Changes

|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive

|Topic=Mechanism of Theory Rejection|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,|Formulated Year=2015|Description=According to '''the theory rejection theorem''', a [[Theory|theory]] becomes '''rejected''' only when other theories that are incompatible with the theory become accepted. By  Implicit in the theorem is the [[The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)|First Law]] for theories, an accepted idea that each theory will remain accepted until it is replaced assessed on an "individual basis by other theories. By its compatibility with the [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|Zeroth Law,]] the elements propositions of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] must be compatible with one another. Thus, a newly accepted theory can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible theory or theories".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 167-172168]]{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=If it turns out that a previously accepted theory is compatible with the newly accepted theory-rejection-theorem, it remain in the agent's mosaic.jpg}}

=== Phlogiston: The Rise and Fall of Barseghyan notes that, although we normally expect a Theory===Phlogiston theory was developed around the 1700’s to be replaced by Joachim Becher (1635-1682) and his student George Ernst Stahl (1660-1734). They posited that all bodies had a common ‘component’ that carried with it the property of combustibility. It was another theory in virtue of the existence same "field" of inquiry, this inflammability principle (i.eis not necessarily the case.For example, he writes, the ‘component’) that bodies were combustible"HSC knows several cases where an accepted theory became rejected simply because it wasn’t compatible with new accepted theories of some other fields".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 54]] Stahl named this unobservable entity phlogiston.[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|ppp. 732171]]

Chemists posited that phlogiston had certain properties. Some of Barseghyan summarizes '''the salient ones includetheory rejection theorem''' as such: bodies that <blockquote>In short, when the axioms of a theory are easily burnt (e.g.replaced by another theory, woodsome of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in the mosaic, charcoal) have more phlogiston than bodies provided that they are difficult to burn; and phlogiston could neither be destroyed nor could it leave compatible with the atmospherenewly accepted theory. Insofar as This is essentially what the mechanism of ‘burning’ or combustion was concerned''theory rejection theorem'' tells us. Thus, if someday our currently accepted general relativity gets replaced by some new theory, the primary notion was theories thatfollowed from general relativity, during combustionsuch as the theory of black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the phlogiston contained in mosaic. [[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 171]] </blockquote>|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)|Prehistory=|History=Initially, the bodies theory rejection theorem was released into accepted as deducible from the air. conjunction of [[The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the first law]] for theories and [[Rory Harder|Harder]]'s [[The air was previously thought to be dephlogisticatedZeroth Law (Harder-2015)|zeroth law]]. After combustionthe replacement of Harder's zeroth law with [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|the compatibility corollary]], howeversuggested by [[Patrick Fraser|Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar|Sarwar]], it became accepted that the release theory rejection theorem is a deductive consequence of phlogiston made the air phlogisticatedfirst law for theories and the compatibility corollary.[[CiteRef::Wisniak Fraser and Sarwar (20042018)|pp. 73272-73374]]|Page Status=Needs Editing}}{{Theory Example|Title=Plenism|Description=Barseghyan considers the case of ''plenism,'' "the view that there can be no empty space (i.e. no space absolutely devoid of matter)", as a key historical illustration of the '''Theory Rejection theorem''' in [[Barseghyan (2015)]].

Phlogiston theory <blockquote> Within the system of the Aristotelian-medieval natural philosophy, ''plenism'' was an integral part one of many theorems. Yet, when the Aristotelian natural philosophy was replaced by that of Descartes, ''plenism'' remained in the scientific mosaic of , for it was a theorem in the timeCartesian system too. It served To appreciate this we have to provide a “broad conceptual scheme into consider the Aristotelian-medieval law of violent motion, which could be fitted most states that an object moves only if the applied force is greater than the resistance of the chemical phenomenon known in the eighteenth century.”[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|ppmedium. 733]] In addition that case, according to explaining combustionthe law, phlogiston theory explained diverse phenomenon such as fluidity and volatility, as well as physical properties such as color and ordour.[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|pp. 740]] Consequently, virtually all of the chemists of velocity will be proportional to the time, in countries such as Germany, France, force and England, accepted inversely proportional to resistance. Otherwise the phlogiston theoryobject won’t move; its velocity will be zero ...

However, phlogiston could not explain Taken as an empirical anomaly. Theoreticallyaxiom, phlogiston was thought to be released into the air when an entity was burntthis law has many interesting consequences. It was thought follows from this law, that if there were no resistance the weight velocity of the object would be infinite. But this is absurd since nothing can move infinitely fast (for that would mean being burnt would decreaseat two places simultaneously). HoweverTherefore, there should always be some resistance, continuous experimentation showed i.e. something that fills up the weight of the body actually increasedmedium. This empirical anomaly contradicted Thus, we arrive at the expectations conception of the chemists, leading to “inextricable confusionplenism ..”[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|pp. 733-734]]

Lavoisier developed in 1778 his theory There weren’t many elements of combustion as an attempt to explain this anomalythe Aristotelian-medieval mosaic that maintained their state within the Cartesian mosaic. He accused The conception of plenism was among the argumentation of phlogiston theory of circularity: “the supporters of few that survived through the phlogiston theory transition... fall in a vicious circle and are forced to reply In the Cartesian system, plenism followed directly from the assumption that combustible bodies contain extension is the attribute of matter of fire because they burn, and they burn because they contain that no attribute can exist independently from the matter of firesubstance in which it inheres ..”[[CiteRef::Wisniak (2004)|pp. 735]]

Lavoisier postulated In short, when the axioms of a theory are replaced by another theory, some of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in the mosaic, provided that combustion depended on they are compatible with the combination newly accepted theory. This is essentially what the theory rejection theorem tells us. Thus, if someday our currently accepted general relativity gets replaced by some new theory, the theories that followed from general relativity, such as the theory of combustible matter and air black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the mosaic.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (oxygen2015)|p. Unlike phlogiston168-170]] </blockquote>|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Theology|Description=The rejection of ''theology proper'' (the study of God, his being, his attributes, and his theory not only explained works) from the increased mass scientific mosaic is a historical illustration of the burnt bodies''Theory Rejection theorem'' and how accepted theories in one field may become rejected due to theories in other fields. In essence, theological propositions were rejected, but also predicted (were not replaced with aid from more theological propositions. It is difficult to track the discovery exact dynamics of theology's "exile," but it is possible that these propositions were rejected and replaced with the composition thesis of water) ''agnosticism'', or that they were rejected due to the compositions acceptance of ''evolutionary biology''. The "exile," as Barseghyan terms it, could have also been a very gradual process, and that the respective particlesrejection of theological propositions came about for different reasons in different mosaics. Given Despite the significance difficulties in tracking down the exact dynamics of these predictions, Academie de Sciences organized experimentation, which was conducted by the most renowned chemists gradual rejection of theology from the time. They concluded scientific mosaic, Barseghyan summarizes the evidence as such: "what must be appreciated here is that “if we doubt of a truth established by experiments so simple and palpable, there would theory can be nothing certain replaced in natural philosophythe mosaic by theories pertaining to other fields of inquiry".”[[CiteRef::Wisniak Barseghyan (20042015)|ppp. 742172]] Therefore|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Astrology|Description=Another example of the theory rejection theorem, specifically explaining that theories may not only be rejected because of the experimentation corroborated the prediction acceptance of the novel factsnew theories in their respective theories, leading to is the acceptance case of Lavoisier’s theory''natural astrology'' presented in [[Barseghyan (2015)]].

This <blockquote>The exile of astrology from the mosaic is yet another example. It is well known that astrology was once a case in point respected scientific discipline and its theories were part of the theory rejection theoremmosaic. Phlogiston theory Of course, not all of the astrology was rejected, because accepted; it was not compatible with the newly accepted theory. In particular, so-called ''natural astrology'' – the new theory did not rely of celestial influences on physical phenomena of the existence of unobserved entities such as phlogiston, and it could explain anomalies terrestrial region – that phlogiston failed to explicate. Importantly, phlogiston was not rejected merely because it failed to explain part of the aboveAristotelian-mentioned anomalymedieval mosaic. . Indeed.. Although, it was rejected only for now, we cannot reconstruct all the details or even the approximate decade when Lavoisier’s new theory, which was incompatible with phlogiston theory, became accepted, thereby demonstrating the mechanism exile of natural astrology took place, one thing is clear: when the once-accepted theory rejection theorem. As a resultof natural astrology became rejected, the phlogiston theory was “now on its way out to be it wasn’t replaced by Lavoisier’s new chemistryanother theory of natural astrology.”[[CiteRef::Wisniak Barseghyan (20042015)|ppp. 742172]]</blockquote>|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)|Page StatusExample Type=Needs EditingHistorical