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?

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.

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.1pp. 12-21

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

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

The following theories have attempted to answer this question:

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

The following theories have been accepted as answers to this question:

Community	Theory	Accepted From	Accepted Until
Scientonomy	Scope of Scientonomy - Descriptive (Barseghyan-2015)	1 January 2016

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

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. 1pp. 12-13

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.21pp. 19-20 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):

• Scope of Scientonomy - Explicit and Implicit
• Scope of Scientonomy - Construction and Appraisal
• Scope of Scientonomy - Individual and Social
• Scope of Scientonomy - Time Fields and Scale
• Scope of Scientonomy - Acceptance Use and Pursuit