Difference between revisions of "Methods Shaping Theory Construction"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|Description=In order to become a contender for acceptance, a theory must meet the requirements of the demarcation criteria outlined by the employed method of the time. Can employed methods shape theory construction? In addition, it seems as though other elements of the mosaic play a part in shaping theory construction. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not have been built without prior acceptance of the formalism of Hilbert Spaces in mathematics. In what way does our mosaic impose constraints on theory construction? | |Description=In order to become a contender for acceptance, a theory must meet the requirements of the demarcation criteria outlined by the employed method of the time. Can employed methods shape theory construction? In addition, it seems as though other elements of the mosaic play a part in shaping theory construction. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not have been built without prior acceptance of the formalism of Hilbert Spaces in mathematics. In what way does our mosaic impose constraints on theory construction? | ||
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change | |Parent Topic=Mechanism of Scientific Change | ||
| − | |Authors List=Jennifer Whyte | + | |Authors List=Jennifer Whyte |
|Formulated Year=2016 | |Formulated Year=2016 | ||
| − | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016 | + | |Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2016 |
| − | |Page Status= | + | |Prehistory= |
| + | |History= | ||
| + | |Current View= | ||
| + | |Page Status=Stub | ||
| + | |Editor Notes=I am not sure this belongs here. Seems like an epistemic practice question, a sub question of how are theories being constructed | ||
| + | |Order=1 | ||
| + | |Lower Order Elements= | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Acceptance Record | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| Line 16: | Line 22: | ||
|Accepted From Day=1 | |Accepted From Day=1 | ||
|Accepted From Approximate=No | |Accepted From Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Acceptance Indicators=This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2016]]. | ||
|Still Accepted=Yes | |Still Accepted=Yes | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Era= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Year= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Month= | ||
| + | |Accepted Until Day= | ||
|Accepted Until Approximate=No | |Accepted Until Approximate=No | ||
| + | |Rejection Indicators= | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:13, 17 October 2022
Do our employed methods and accepted demarcation criteria influence theory construction?
In order to become a contender for acceptance, a theory must meet the requirements of the demarcation criteria outlined by the employed method of the time. Can employed methods shape theory construction? In addition, it seems as though other elements of the mosaic play a part in shaping theory construction. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics could not have been built without prior acceptance of the formalism of Hilbert Spaces in mathematics. In what way does our mosaic impose constraints on theory construction?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Jennifer Whyte in 2016. 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 | 1 April 2016 | This question was acknowledged as legitimate in the Scientonomy Seminar 2016. | 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 Scientific Change.
