Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
|Title=Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts
|Theory Type=Normative
|Formulation Text=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.
|Topic=Assessment of Scientonomy - Relevant Facts
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Description=Some facts ''ought '' to be relevant to the [[Theory Acceptance|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 [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]] were part of the [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] of the community in question, both before and after the instance of [[Scientific Change|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|scope of scientonomy]]. For example, if scientonomy deals with scientific change [[Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social|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 [[Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal|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.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 111]]
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Page Status=Needs Editing
2,020

edits

Navigation menu