editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mechanism of Theory Acceptance (view source)
Revision as of 21:22, 9 March 2017
, 21:22, 9 March 2017no edit summary
A major development occurred when [[Thomas Kuhn]] presented his groundbreaking analysis of scientific change in [[Kuhn_(1962)| ''The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'']] According to Kuhn, periods of 'normal science' are interrupted by 'scientific revolutions' that involve paradigm shifts. In a paradigm shift involves a fundamental change in world view for the relevant scientific communities. In his conception of theory change, the old and new theories are incommensurable.[[CiteRef::Kuhn (1962)]] While Kuhn's ideas stirred much controversy, they were generally recognized as highly important.
In his [[Lakatos (1978a)|''Methodology of Scientific Research Programs'']] [[Imre Lakatos]] advocated a less cataclysmic view of scientific change, extending the earlier views of Popper. Refining Popper's views, he believed that theories are not necessarily falsified by failed predictions. Rather, a theory's fate depends on its centrality in an overarching research program. The more central a theory is to its research program, the more effort will be extended towards saving it by modifying the research program's auxiliary hypotheses. [[CiteRef::Lakatos (19781978a)]]
[[Paul Feyerabend]] argued in [[Feyerabend_(1975a)| ''Against Method'']] that the methods of theory acceptance change over time in science, and that these changes are largely arbitrary. [[Dudley Shapere]] agreed that scientific methods change over time. In [[Shapere_(1980)| ''The Character of Scientific Change'']], Shapere argued that the scientific methods used at the time are affected by the beliefs that the scientific community holds.[[CiteRef::Feyerabend (1975a)]][[CiteRef::Shapere (1980)]]
[[Larry Laudan]] agreed. In [[Laudan_(1984)| ''Science and Values'']], Laudan argues that the methods that scientific theories are accepted depend on the epistemic values that scientists hold. He recounted how knowledge of experimenters bias and the placebo effect led to the development of the double blind method in drug testing. Laudan's ideas are important precursors to Scientonomy.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984)]][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]]
In contrast, the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK) research program, including sociologists like [[Barry Barnes]] and [[David Bloor]] seek to explain science as a sociological phenomenon and sometimes stress the role played by non-empirical social values in scientific change.
|History=Patton, Overgaard and Barseghyan have proposed a reformulation of the Second Law of Theory Acceptance. The reformulated Second Law allows for the possibility an inconclusive outcome to theory assessment. With an inconclusive outcome, theory acceptance, unacceptance or mosaic split are all possible. [[CiteRef::Patton, Overgaard, and Barseghyan (2017)]]
|Related Topics=Mechanism of Method Employment,
