Changes

|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 [[The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the first law]] for theories, an accepted theory remains accepted until it is replaced by other theories. By [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|the compatibility corollary]], the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other at any moment of time. It follows, therefore, that a theory can only become rejected when it is replaced by an incompatible theory or theories.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 167-172]] [[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|pp. 72-74]]

{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Theory Rejection Theorem deduction Implicit in the theorem is the idea that each theory is assessed on an "individual basis by its compatibility with the propositions of the newly accepted theory".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (Barseghyan-Fraser-Sarwar-20182015)|p. 168]] If it turns out that a previously accepted theory is compatible with the newly accepted theory, it remain in the agent's mosaic.png}}

Implicit in the theorem is the idea Barseghyan notes that each , although we normally expect a theory is assessed on an "individual basis to be replaced by its compatibility with another theory in the propositions same "field" of inquiry, this is not necessarily the newly case. For example, he writes, "HSC knows several cases where an accepted theorybecame rejected simply because it wasn’t compatible with new accepted theories of some other fields".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 168171]] If it turns out that a previously accepted theory is compatible with the newly accepted theory, it remain in the agent's mosaic.

Barseghyan notes, when introducing summarizes '''the theory rejection theorem''' as such:<blockquote>In short, when the axioms of a theory are replaced by another theory, some of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in [[Barseghyan (2015)]]the mosaic, "it provided that they are compatible with the newly accepted theory. This is worth appreciating that no essentially what the ''theory rejection (and no theory change in general) can take place in a genuinely dogmatic communitytheorem'' tells us. NamelyThus, theory change is impossible in cases where a if someday our currently accepted general relativity gets replaced by some new theory is considered , the theories that followed from general relativity, such as revealing the final and absolute truth"theory of black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the mosaic.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 165171]]</blockquote>

|History=Initially, the theory rejection theorem was accepted as deducible from the conjunction of [[The First Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the first law]] for theories and [[Rory Harder|Harder]]'s [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|zeroth law]]. After the replacement of Harder's zeroth law with [[Compatibility Corollary (Fraser-Sarwar-2018)|the compatibility corollary]], suggested by [[Patrick Fraser|Fraser]] and [[Ameer Sarwar|Sarwar]], it became accepted that the theory rejection theorem is a deductive consequence of the first law for theories and the compatibility corollary.[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar (2018)|pp. 72-74]]|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)]].

{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=theory<blockquote> Within the system of the Aristotelian-rejectionmedieval natural philosophy, ''plenism'' was one of many theorems. Yet, when the Aristotelian natural philosophy was replaced by that of Descartes, ''plenism'' remained in the mosaic, for it was a theorem in the Cartesian system too. To appreciate this we have to consider the Aristotelian-theoremmedieval law of violent motion, which states that an object moves only if the applied force is greater than the resistance of the medium. In that case, according to the law, the velocity will be proportional to the force and inversely proportional to resistance. Otherwise the object won’t move; its velocity will be zero ...jpg}}

After Taken as an axiom, this law has many interesting consequences. It follows from this law, that if there were no resistance the velocity of the object would be infinite. But this is absurd since nothing can move infinitely fast (for that would mean being at two places simultaneously). Therefore, there should always be some resistance, i.e. something that fills up the medium. Thus, we arrive at the conception of plenism ... There weren’t many elements of the Aristotelian-medieval mosaic that maintained their state within the Cartesian mosaic. The conception of plenism was among the few that survived through the transition. In the Cartesian system, plenism followed directly from the assumption that extension is the attribute of matter and that no attribute can exist independently from the substance in which it inheres ... In short, when the replacement axioms of Harder's zeroth law a theory are replaced by another theory, some of the theorems may nevertheless manage to stay in the mosaic, provided that they are compatible with the 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 black holes, may nevertheless manage to remain in the mosaic.[[Compatibility Corollary CiteRef::Barseghyan (Fraser-Sarwar-20182015)|the compatibility corollaryp. 168-170]]</blockquote>|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Theology|Description=The rejection of ''theology proper'' (the study of God, his being, his attributes, and his works) from the scientific mosaic is a historical illustration of the ''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 were not replaced with more theological propositions. It is difficult to track the exact dynamics of theology's "exile," but it is possible that these propositions were rejected and replaced with the thesis of ''agnosticism'', or that they were rejected due to the acceptance of ''evolutionary biology''. The "exile," as Barseghyan terms it, could have also been a very gradual process, and that the rejection of theological propositions came about for different reasons in different mosaics. Despite the difficulties in tracking down the exact dynamics of the gradual rejection of theology from the scientific mosaic, suggested Barseghyan summarizes the evidence as such: "what must be appreciated here is that a theory can be replaced in the mosaic by theories pertaining to other fields of inquiry".[[Patrick FraserCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|Fraserp. 172]] and |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 acceptance of new theories in their respective theories, is the case of ''natural astrology'' presented in [[Ameer Sarwar|SarwarBarseghyan (2015)]]. <blockquote>The exile of astrology from the mosaic is yet another example. It is well known that astrology was once a respected scientific discipline and its theories were part of the mosaic. Of course, not all of the astrology was accepted; it became accepted that was the so-called ''natural astrology'' – the theory rejection theorem is a deductive consequence of celestial influences on physical phenomena of the terrestrial region – that was part of the first law Aristotelian-medieval mosaic. ... Although, for theories and now, we cannot reconstruct all the details or even the approximate decade when the exile of natural astrology took place, one thing is clear: when the compatibility corollaryonce-accepted theory of natural astrology became rejected, it wasn’t replaced by another theory of natural astrology.[[CiteRef::Fraser and Sarwar Barseghyan (20182015)|ppp. 72-74172]]</blockquote>|Page StatusExample Type=Needs EditingHistorical