Difference between revisions of "Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy | |Parent Topic=Scope of Scientonomy | ||
|Description=Should a scientonomic theory merely explain how science changes through time, or should it prescribe how science ought to change, or both? | |Description=Should a scientonomic theory merely explain how science changes through time, or should it prescribe how science ought to change, or both? | ||
| − | |Year | + | |Formulated Year=2015 |
|Author=Hakob Barseghyan, | |Author=Hakob Barseghyan, | ||
|Prehistory=One of the reasons why the classic philosophy of science failed to accomplish its task was the vagueness of its position regarding this question. The theories of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and early Laudan can all be considered either as descriptions of how science changes through time and/or prescriptions of how it ought to change.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 12-21]] | |Prehistory=One of the reasons why the classic philosophy of science failed to accomplish its task was the vagueness of its position regarding this question. The theories of Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and early Laudan can all be considered either as descriptions of how science changes through time and/or prescriptions of how it ought to change.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 12-21]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 10:00, 28 August 2016
References
- a b c d Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
- ^ Vickers, John. (2014) The Problem of Induction. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/.
