Difference between revisions of "Scientific Change"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Open Questions) |
m |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== Open Questions == | == Open Questions == | ||
| − | + | * This definition is problematic as it inadvertently qualifies ''every'' change in a mosaic as scientific. However, it is clear that not all changes in a mosaic are scientific; some changes might take place in violation of the laws of scientific change. By current definition, even the most outrageous cases of politically influenced changes in a mosaic (e.g. the Lysenko case) qualify as scientific. Now, how can the definition of "scientific change" be modified to exclude ''unscientific'' changes in a mosaic? In particular, how can it be accomplished without turning the laws of scientific change into tautologies? | |
== Related Articles == | == Related Articles == | ||
Revision as of 02:56, 26 March 2016
Scientific change is defined as any change in a scientific mosaic, i.e. a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.
Prehistory
Prehistory here
History
Current View
Currently, "scientific change" denotes to any change in a scientific mosaic, be that a transition from one accepted theory to another or from one employed method to another.
Open Questions
- This definition is problematic as it inadvertently qualifies every change in a mosaic as scientific. However, it is clear that not all changes in a mosaic are scientific; some changes might take place in violation of the laws of scientific change. By current definition, even the most outrageous cases of politically influenced changes in a mosaic (e.g. the Lysenko case) qualify as scientific. Now, how can the definition of "scientific change" be modified to exclude unscientific changes in a mosaic? In particular, how can it be accomplished without turning the laws of scientific change into tautologies?
