Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive and Normative
Ought a scientonomic theory be descriptive or normative?
Should a scientonomic theory merely explain how science changes through time, or should it prescribe how science ought to change, or both? There are at least three different sorts of questions concerning the process of scientific change; historical questions, theoretical questions, and methodological questions. Historical questions deal with matters such as what theories were accepted and what methods were employed at a particular time. Theoretical questions such questions as the mechanisms of theory and method change. They both deal in descriptive questions. Methodological questions deal with normative matters such as what methods ought to be employed and what theories ought to be accepted. The question at issue is which of these sorts of questions ought to fall within the scope of scientonomy, and which should not.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan in 2015. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is:
- Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions.
Contents
Broader History
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.1
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | 1 January 2016 | That is when the community accepted its first answer to this question, the Scope of Scientonomy - Description(Barseghyan-2015), which indicates that the question is itself considered legitimate.pp. 12-21 | Yes |
All Theories
Theory | Formulation | Formulated In |
---|---|---|
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015) | Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions. | 2015 |
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Community | Theory | Accepted From | Accepted Until |
---|---|---|---|
Scientonomy | Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015) | 1 January 2016 |
Suggested Modifications
Current View
In Scientonomy, the accepted answer to the question is Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015).
Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015) states: "Scientonomy is a descriptive discipline whose main task is to explain the process of changes in the scientific mosaic. It is distinct from normative methodology, whose task is to evaluate and prescribe methods. The findings of scientonomy may be used in such normative evaluations, but scientonomy itself should not be expected to perform any normative functions."
There are at least three sorts of questions that we might ask about the process of 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 scientific change, 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. 1
As the "science of science" scientonomy seeks a purely descriptive account of processes of change in the scientific mosaic and therefore encompasses only historical and theoretical questions. Keeping descriptive scientific questions distinct from questions of normative methodology avoids numerous pitfalls. For example, those who conflate the two sometimes argue that because some method is known to have flaws of logical consistency or soundness, it cannot possibly have been the one that was, in fact, used by scientists. However, there is a great deal historical evidence that scientists actually have used logically flawed methods. Inductive reasoning is a ubiquitous part of science, despite its well known flaws.21 The intrusion of normative concerns could also undermine scientonomy's aspirations to scientific status. If any laws of scientific change discovered were accorded normative force they would become tautological truths incapable being called into question by empirical inquiry.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Scope of Scientonomy.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
References
- a b c 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/.