Individual Level

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to: navigation, search

What is individual level? How should it be defined?

Individual level is one of the key concepts in current scientonomy. Thus, its proper definition is of great importance. When analyzing the role of the individual level throughout the scientific change it is important to look at individual figures throughout the history of science. A lot of the times their views affected in a way the scientific mosaic of the time and their work allows us to understand the possible cause of the shift in methods and theories.

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. Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015) is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available definition of the term. Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015) states "The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment."

Prehistory

Prior to the 20th century, epistemology of science has dealt primarily with how individuals produce and evaluate knowledge.1p. 4 This focus on the knowledge of the individual characterizes both the empiricist tradition of Locke and Hume, and the rationalist tradition of Descartes and Leibniz.1p. 4

Despite the growing attention to the knowledge of social epistemic agents, many 20th century authors still focused on the belief systems of individual scientists (e.g. Feyerabend's focus on Galileo).2) Even in the famous Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) project which aimed at testing theoretical claims against the historical data, most authors focused largely on individuals. For example, Finocchiaro sets to test some general claims bout the process of scientific change by focusing on the belief system of Galileo and his acceptance of Copernicanism.3p. 18

History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy1 January 2016Yes

All Theories

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:
TheoryFormulationFormulated In
Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015)The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment.2015
If a definition of this term is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:
CommunityTheoryAccepted FromAccepted Until
ScientonomyIndividual Level (Barseghyan-2015)1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy community, the accepted definition of the term is Individual Level (Barseghyan-2015). It is defined as: "The level of the beliefs of the individual scientist about the world and the rules she employs in theory assessment."

Individual level p 43.jpg

By the individual level Barseghyan means an "individual scientist who has her own set of ideas and beliefs about the world, and employs certain methods which might be different than the accepted methods of the time".4p. 43 Read More

Related Topics

This topic is a sub-topic of Scientific Mosaic.

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

References

  1. a b  Longino, Helen. (2016) The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/.
  2. ^  Feyerabend, Paul. (1975) Against Method. New Left Books.
  3. ^  Donovan, Arthur; Laudan, Larry and Laudan, Rachel. (Eds.). (1988) Scrutinizing Science: Empirical Studies of Scientific Change. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  4. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.

Contributors

Hakob Barseghyan (36.2%), Georgiana Dusa (44.2%), Jacqueline Sereda (19.6%)