Hierarchy of Theories
Is there a hierarchy of theory priority that demands relative acceptance and compatibility criteria wherein lower-level theories mustn't conflict with higher-level theories?
When a contending theory is unaccepted and fails to enter the mosaic, sometimes it is due to the theory's conflicting nature with an already accepted theory. Take for example Copernican theory that goes against Aristotelian physics by postulating that the Earth moves and also note its conflict with Scripture. Given this case, it is clear that despite Copernican theory being more accurate (and more 'elegant' by removing the equant of Ptolemaic theory), it remained unaccepted. However, the theory was used for astronomic tables. One might say from this example that conformity with Aristotelian physics and Scripture was part of the acceptance criteria of the time. This sort of scenario is also more common in contemporary science. No biological theory would become accepted if it proposed an impossible chemical reaction, no chemical theory would be accepted if it violated physical conservation laws, no physical theory would be accepted if it had logical/mathematical contradictions within. This idea is similar to that of Lakatos's core beliefs.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Abdullah Sarwar and Kye Palider in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.
Contents
Scientonomic History
Acceptance Record
| Community | Accepted From | Acceptance Indicators | Still Accepted | Accepted Until | Rejection Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientonomy | 14 September 2018 | Yes |
All Theories
If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.
Accepted Theories
Suggested Modifications
Current View
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
Related Topics
This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Theory Acceptance.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
