Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015)
An attempt to answer the question of Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts which states "At the level of metatheory, the relevant evidence for assessing a scientonomic theory ought to be the facts relating to the state of the scientific mosaic and its transitions. The complete list of relevant phenomena that ought to be considered can only be identified for a specific scientonomic theory."
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 January 2016||The theory was introduced by Barseghyan in 'The Laws of Scientific Change' 1 and became 'de facto' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole theory of scientific change.||Yes|
Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts (Barseghyan-2015) is an attempt to answer the following question: What classes of facts ought we to take into account when assessing a scientonomic theory?
See Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts for more details.
Some facts ought to be relevant to the assessment of a theory because the content of the theory itself implies their relevance, and others ought to be relevant simply by definition. When assessing a theory concerning scientific change, relevant facts that ought necessarily to be considered include questions pertinent to scientific change processes. For example: What theories and methods were part of the scientific mosaic of the community in question, both before and after the instance of scientific change? What modifications were proposed and what parts of the mosaic did they intend to replace? Which of these modifications became accepted into the mosaic, and how?
Relevant questions will depend on accepted views about the scope of scientonomy. For example, if scientonomy deals with scientific change at the level of scientific communities, then facts about the accepted views of communities ought to be relevant, and the views of particular individuals ought not. If scientonomy deals only with theory appraisal and not with theory construction, then it follows that facts concerning the former, but not the latter, ought to be considered.
Relevant facts will also depend on the content of the mosaic at the time in question. For example, it is anachronistic to speak of religious constraints on science in the seventeenth century since, at that time, religion and natural philosophy were not regarded as separate domains of knowledge, but as part of the same mosaic.1
- Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.