Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
289 bytes added ,  23:04, 9 January 2023
no edit summary
{{Definitional Topic
|Singular Capitalized=
|Plural Capitalized=Theories
|Singular Lowercase=theory
|Plural Lowercase=theories
|Indefinite Article=a
|Question=What is '''theory'''? How should it be ''defined''?
|Description=Among the major tasks of scientonomy is to explain transitions from one accepted theory to the next. Thus, it is crucial to have a well-defined notion of ''theory''.
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Prehistory=In modern times philosophers have held a variety of views about how best to express the structure and content of scientific theories.[[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]]
The pragmatic view rejects a purely formal characterization of scientific theories entirely, and supposes that a theory necessarily consists of sentences, models, problems, standards, skills, practices, including such things as analogies, metaphors, and natural kinds, with its full characterization necessarily including elements that cannot be formalized.[[CiteRef::Mormann (2008)]][[CiteRef::Winther (2016)]] Proponents of the pragmatic view include [[Nancy Cartwright]], [[Ian Hacking]], [[Philip Kitcher]], and [[Helen Longino]].
|History=[[Theory (Barseghyan-2015)|The original definition]] of ''theory'' was proposed by Barseghyan in 2015. It defined a theory as any set of propositions that attempt to describe something.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)]] As such, this definition excluded normative propositions. In early 2017, it was replaced by [[Theory (Sebastien-2016)|the definition]] suggested by Sebastien in 2016.
|Current View=|Related Topics=Method, Scientific Mosaic,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}

Navigation menu