editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 19:02, 15 June 2017
, 19:02, 15 June 2017no edit summary
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Description=xxxxThere are at least three sorts of questions that we might ask about the process of [[Scientific Change|scientific change]]; Historical questions having to do with what theories and methods were accepted by a particular community at a particular point in time, Theoretical questions about the mechanisms of how scientific change happens, and methodological questions about how scientific change ought to happen and what theories and methods ought to be accepted. The first two questions are descriptive in nature, and the third is normative. Normative and descriptive concerns have often been conflated in discussions of scientific change. For example, [[Thomas Kuhn]] wrote that his theory "should be read in both ways at once" [[CiteRef:: Kuhn (1970a)]]. The traditional belief in a fixed an unchanging method of science contributed to this conflation, since the problem of identifying the true method of science was seen as both a descriptive historical and a normative methodological question. By the 1980's most authors agreed that the methods of science had changed over time, and that a theory of scientific change needed to account for both theory change and method change. As the "science of science" scientonomy seeks a descriptive account of processes of change in the scientific mosaic, and sets normative concerns aside as the concerns of methodologists. To do otherwise runs the risk of rendering any laws of scientific change discovered
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
}}
