Epistemic Stances
What are the epistemic stances that can be taken by epistemic agents towards different epistemic elements?
Epistemic agents can take different epistemic stances towards different elements. The types of stances that can be in principle taken towards a theory may or may not be the same as the types of stances that can be taken towards methods of theory evaluation. Thus, it must be clarified which types of stances (e.g. acceptance, use, pursuit, employment) can be taken towards epistemic elements of any given type (e.g. theories, methods).
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element.
Contents
Broader History
In the early twentieth century, many logical positivists supported a confirmationist view of theory assessment, in which theories are assessed on the basis of the balance of confirming and disconfirming evidence. In 1945, Carl Hempel, a logical empiricist and confirmationist, argued that an agent might take three stances towards a theory, accepting it, rejecting it, or withholding judgment, based on confirming or disconfirming evidence. 12
In his Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959), 3 Karl Popper argued for a falsificationist view of science. Scientific ideas gained acceptance when they had survived strong tests in which their unexpected novel predictions were verified, and where rejected when they failed to survive such tests. 45
Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1963) used a number of equally vague terms to refer to stances a community might take towards a theory, including universally received, embraced, acknowledged, and committed to. 6
In Imre Lakatos's theory of scientific change individual theories were encompassed in larger assemblages called research programs. A research program consists of a family of scientific theories containing 'hard core' assumptions, which are stubbornly defended, surrounded by a protective belt of associated auxiliary assumptions, which may be modified if needed to protect the hard core. Lakatos identified two epistemic stances with respect to research programs. They were either progressive or degenerating. A research program was progressive if its theories successfully predicted hitherto unexpected facts.It was degenerating if it failed to make such predictions, and if its theories were fabricated in order to accommodate already known facts. 7
Larry Laudan's reticulated model of scientific change involved scientific theories, scientific methods, and scientific values, all interdependent. Methods could change along with theories, and thus epistemic agents could take stances with respect to them both. Laudan distinguished between the pursuit and acceptance of theories. To accept a theory, for Laudan, is to believe in its truth, and to pursue it is to work with it or explore it without committing to a belief that it is true. 5
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | While, in this general form, the question wasn't clearly stated in The Laws of Scientific Change, it was implicit in a more specific question of Epistemic Stances Towards Theories. | Yes |
All Theories
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) | The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element. | 2018 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) | 1 October 2021 |
Suggested Modifications
Modification | Community | Date Suggested | Summary | Date Assessed | Verdict | Verdict Rationale |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sciento-2018-0016 | Scientonomy | 28 December 2018 | Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not in general. | 1 October 2021 | Accepted | The community agreed that the compatibility is "a distinct epistemic stance, separable, in principle, from that of theory acceptance",c1 as it is "a stance that may be taken in addition to/combination with other stances".c2 The reviewers agreed that "Fraser and Sarwar argue convincingly that elements outside the mosaic can be assessed for compatibility with other elements inside or outside the mosaic",c3 since it "can be used to compare elements that are all part of a mosaic, all not part of a mosaic, or some combination of the two".c4 It was also argued that "since we accept the existence of compatibility criteria... we should also accept that there is such a stance as compatibility".c5 Finally, it was also suggested that the idea of compatibility as a binary relation is to be further explored.c6 |
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018).
Epistemic Stances Towards Epistemic Elements - Compatibility (Fraser-Sarwar-2018) states: "The stance of compatibility can be taken towards an epistemic element."
Fraser and Sarwar argued that, as an epistemic stance, compatibility can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types.8
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Ontology of Scientific Change.
It has the following sub-topic(s):
References
- ^ Losee, John. (2001) A Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press.
- ^ Hempel, Carl. (1945) Studies in the Logic of Confirmation. Mind 54 (213), 1-26.
- ^ Popper, Karl. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co.
- ^ Thornton (2015)
- a b Godfrey-Smith, Peter. (2003) Theory and Reality. University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Kuhn (1962)
- ^ Lakatos (1978)
- ^ Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.