Open main menu

Changes

202 bytes removed ,  23:23, 11 December 2022
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Question=What are '''sociocultural factors?''' How should they be ''defined?''
|Topic Type=Definitional|Description=When changes in the scientific mosaic occur due to factors outside of what a mosaic considers to be "intellectual", those sources of change are referred to as "sociocultural factors". Sociocultural factors can include individual and group interests, power, politics, economics, etc. The question is how the term ''sociocultural factors'' is to be defined.
|Formulated Year=2016
|Prehistory=In the Aristotelian-Medieval mosaic, the Cartesian mosaic, and much of the Newtonian mosaic, scientists were for the most part strictly rationalist — a view which dictates that scientific beliefs are a consequence only of reason and evidence.[[CiteRef::Brown (2001)|p. 150]],[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]] The distinction between intellectual and sociocultural influences in science were not clearly defined, as there were not yet disciplinary boundaries within the sciences. Many factors that influenced scientific change that we now consider to be ''sociocultural'' organically fell under the rationalist umbrella within this highly holistic enterprise of knowledge-seeking.[[CiteRef::Shapere (1986)|p. 4]]
The logical positivists were the first to distinguish influences derived from propositions within the sciences as ''internal'' factors, and all other influences originating in the realm of society as ''external'' factors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] [[Karl Popper]] also used the terms ''external'' and ''internal'' when discussing sociocultural factors, and mainly discussed the role of the external factors on theory construction.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 233]] In 1970, [[Imre Lakatos]] suggested that what constitutes as ''external'' and what is ''internal'' is defined by the methodology of the time. "External history either provides non-rational explanation of the speed, locality, selectiveness etc. of historic events as interpreted in terms of internal history", Lakatos writes in his ''History of Science and its Rational Reconstruction'', "or, when history differs from its rational reconstruction, it provides an empirical explanation of why it differs. But the rational aspect of scientific growth is fully accounted for by one's logic of scientific discovery."[[CiteRef::Lakatos (1971a)|pp. 105-106]]
[[Hakob Barseghyan]] agrees with Lakatos in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' that only a theory of scientific change can tell us which factors are factors are internal to science and which external.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 234]] However, he argues that if we we were to define all ''sociocultural factors as being ''as all those factors that are external'' to sciencescientific change, then the whole question of the role of sociocultural factors will would become vacuous: according to the laws of scientific change; by definition, those factors would never be able to influence scientific change. Therefore, ''sociocultural factors'' cannot be defined in terms of ''external'' factors. It is due to this that the [[Community:Scientonomy|Scientonomy community]] doesn't use the terms ''internal'' and ''external'' to describe intellectual and sociocultural factors.|Current View=The term is only loosely described in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'' as encompassing all of the non-epistemic factors that affect scientific change including political, economic, and social factors, as well as group and individual interests.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 233-234]] A more precise definition is needed.
|Related Topics=Role of Sociocultural Factors in Method Employment, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Theory Acceptance,
|Page Status=Needs Editing