Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Subtypes of Epistemic Element (view source)
Revision as of 20:13, 10 February 2023
, 20:13, 10 February 2023no edit summary
[[Larry Laudan]] also proposed a theory of scientific change, namely his reticulated model,[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]] wherein there are scientific theories, scientific methods, and scientific values, all interdependent. In this model, the epistemic elements are theories, methods, and values, and this model posits that the values of the community are reflected in the methods, and the methods determine which theories become accepted. However, he also notes that the accepted theories influence which methods the community will employ, and can equally change the values of the community. In this respect, the reticulated model is a fully dynamic, covariant theory of scientific change wherein all epistemic elements influence one another. This was notably one of the first attempts at a theory of scientific change that included a dynamic method and acknowledged that such a dynamic method could itself be influenced by the theories that become accepted under it.
|History=Initially, the ontology of scientific change was posited in the ''Metatheory'' of ''[[Barseghyan (2015)|the LSC]]'' through the ''[[:Category:Definitional Topic|definition]]'' of [[Scientific Mosaic|scientific mosaic]] as a set of all accepted theories and employed methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 5]] According to this initial ontology, "at any moment of time, there are certain theories and certain methods employed in theory assessment".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.5]] In that ontology, [[Theory|theories]] and [[Method|methods]] were the only types of elements that undergo scientific change, while the class of theories only included [[Descriptive Theory|''descriptive theories'']]; [[Normative Theory|''normative theories'' and ''definitions'' were left out of the ontology. Towards the end of 2016, it gradually became clear that the ontology of a field cannot and should not be postulated via definitions. What constitutes the elements of a certain ontology must be established by empirical research and, thus, is not a matter of definitions. In other words, the question of what constitutes the ontology of a certain field is a ''[[:Category:Descriptive Topic|descriptive question]]'', not definitional. Indeed, what sort of elements change during the process of scientific change is not something that should be decided by a definition, but should be formulated as a descriptive theory that says "Such-and-such elements undergo scientific change".
|Current View=
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
