Difference between revisions of "Necessary Theories"
(Created page with "{{Topic |Subject=Theory |Topic Type=Descriptive |Subfield=Dynamics |Inherited From=Necessary Epistemic Elements |Heritable=No |Question Text Formula= |Question Title Formula=N...") |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|Object Enum Values= | |Object Enum Values= | ||
|Object Regexp= | |Object Regexp= | ||
− | |Single Answer Text Formula= | + | |Single Answer Text Formula= |
− | |Multiple Answers Text Formula= | + | |Multiple Answers Text Formula= |
− | |Answer Title Formula= | + | |Answer Title Formula= |
− | |Description= | + | |Description=The [[Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015)|necessary method theorem]] states that the [[Method|method]] "only accept the best available theories" is a necessary element of any [[Scientific Mosaic (Barseghyan-2015)|scientific mosaic]]. Are there any necessary [[Theory|theories]] in addition to this method? It seems as though there must be some necessary ''analytic'' theories, since any scientific enterprise assumes a whole network of concepts, albeit not explicitly defined. The question is whether there are any necessary ''synthetic'' propositions. If so, this could mean that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. |
− | |Formulated Year= | + | |Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan |
+ | |Formulated Year=2016 | ||
+ | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016 | ||
|Prehistory= | |Prehistory= | ||
|History= | |History= | ||
Line 27: | Line 29: | ||
|Page Status=Stub | |Page Status=Stub | ||
|Editor Notes= | |Editor Notes= | ||
+ | }} | ||
+ | {{Acceptance Record | ||
+ | |Community=Community:Scientonomy | ||
+ | |Accepted From Era=CE | ||
+ | |Accepted From Year=2016 | ||
+ | |Accepted From Month=April | ||
+ | |Accepted From Day=1 | ||
+ | |Accepted From Approximate=No | ||
+ | |Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. | ||
+ | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
+ | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
+ | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
+ | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
+ | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
+ | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
+ | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 22:48, 20 January 2023
Are there theories that are necessarily part of any mosaic?
The necessary method theorem states that the method "only accept the best available theories" is a necessary element of any scientific mosaic. Are there any necessary theories in addition to this method? It seems as though there must be some necessary analytic theories, since any scientific enterprise assumes a whole network of concepts, albeit not explicitly defined. The question is whether there are any necessary synthetic propositions. If so, this could mean that synthetic a priori knowledge is possible.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2016. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 April 2016 | It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2016. | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015).
Necessary Normative Theories
Necessary Method theorem (Barseghyan-2015) states: "In order for the process of scientific change to be possible, the mosaic must necessarily contain at least one employed method."
According to the non-empty mosaic theorem, there must be at least one element present in a mosaic. The Necessary Method theorem specifies that this element must be a method. That is, "one method is a must for the whole enterprise of scientific change to take off the ground".1
What would this method be? As per Barseghyan (2015):
This necessary method cannot be substantive. Since a substantive method is necessarily based on at least one contingent proposition, it is not a necessary element of any mosaic. Indeed, any substantive method can become employed after the acceptance of those contingent propositions on which it is based. Of course, in some mosaics, substantive methods can also be present from the outset. Moreover, it is quite likely that even the earliest of mosaics tacitly contained some primitive substantive methods (e.g. “trust your senses”, or “trust the chieftain”). Yet, the key theoretical point is that no substantive method is necessarily part of any mosaic, for a substantive method can become employed after the acceptance of the theories on which it is based.
Therefore, the necessary method is not substantive, but procedural, i.e. it doesn’t presuppose any contingent propositions. But it is a procedural method of a very special kind in that it cannot presuppose any propositions whatsoever: "the method that is necessarily present in any mosaic is not based on any propositions".1
In other words, it must be the most abstract of all methods. Any concrete method is an implementation of a more abstract method. Any concrete method is a logical consequence of the conjunction of some accepted theories and that abstract method (by the third law). Thus, a concrete method can become employed after the acceptance of the propositions on which it is based. Therefore, what we are looking for is the most abstract of all possible requirements.
We have come across that requirement on many occasions: the most abstract requirement to accept only the best available theories. This basic requirement is the most abstract of all, for it does not presuppose any other methods or theories. It is not surprising given that this abstract method is only a restatement of the definition of acceptance: this abstract method basically says that a theory is acceptable when it is the best available description of its object. But since this abstract requirement isn’t based on any theories, it cannot become accepted; it must be built into any mosaic from the outset.
As vague and unrestricting as this method is, it nevertheless performs two very important functions. First, it indicates the main goal of the whole scientific enterprise – the acquisition of best available descriptions. Second, being a link between accepted theories and more concrete methods, it allows us to modify our methods as we learn new things about the world, i.e. it allows for concrete methods to become employed as we accept new theories. In short, it is this abstract requirement that makes the process of scientific change possible.1
That is, any other method can be conceived as a deductive consequence of the conjunction of this abstract method and some accepted theories:
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Necessary Epistemic Elements. It has the following sub-topic(s):