Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)

Revision as of 15:49, 4 February 2023

10,818 bytes added ,  15:49, 4 February 2023
no edit summary
{{Theory|Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment|Theory Type=Descriptive Theory|Subject=|Predicate=
|Title=The Third Law
|Alternate Titles=the law of method employment
|TopicTitle Formula=Mechanism |Text Formula=|Formulation Text=A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of Method Employmentthe time.|Object=
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year Formulated=2015|Formulation TextFile=A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the timeThe Third Law Barseghyan 2015.png|Description=Barseghyan's formulation of the third law states that a [[Method|method]] becomes [[Employed Method Employment|employed]] only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted [[Theory|theories]] of the time."Essentially," Barseghyan writes, "the third law stipulates that our accepted theories shape our employed methods".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 132]]
According to this formulation, a method becomes employed when:
# it implements some abstract requirements of other employed methods.
In a nutshell, this suggests that [[Theory Acceptance|accepted theories]] shape the set of [[Employed Method Employment|implicit criteria employed]] in theory assessment.
In practice, the third law states that when a new phenomenon is discovered, this discovery produces an abstract requirement to take that discovery into account when testing relevant theories. This abstract requirement is then specified by a new employed method.
The evolution third law does not stipulate how methods should go about specifying any new abstract requirement. The third law functions as a descriptive account of the drug trial how methods change, and is not responsible for describing how methods ought to change. As such, it is an example effective means of explicating the requirements of other employed methods. The third law in actionhas an important corollary: scientific change is not necessarily a ''synchronous '' process, which notably differs from Kuhn's view of scientific change as a ''wholesale,'' ''synchronous'' process.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. For example, 151]] This corollary is known as the discovery [[Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem (Barseghyan-2015)]].|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)|Prehistory=The basic idea of ''the placebo effect in drug testing demonstrates third law'' is not new. A number of philosophers have suggested that fake treatment our beliefs about the world shape how we engage with the world. Different versions of this idea can cause improvement be found in patient symptoms. As a result of its discovery the abstract requirement works of “when assessing a drug’s efficacy[[Thomas Kuhn]], [[Paul Feyerabend]], [[Dudley Shapere]], [[Larry Laudan]], the possible placebo effect must be taken into account” was generatedand [[Ernan McMullin]]. This abstract requirement Most noteworthy is[[Larry Laudan]]’s account of changes in drug trial methods. In his ''Science and Values'', by definition, an accepted theory which stipulates Laudan argued thatthe discovery of previously unaccounted effects resulted in the formulation of new methods of drug testing.[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)|pp. 38-39]] However, if ignoredwhile Laudan’s account hints at aspects of ''the third law'', substantial doubt would be cast on any trialit ultimately conflates [[Method|methods]] and [[Methodology|methodologies]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. As 130-131]] [[Ernan McMullin]]’s accounts of historical methods offer another example of a result prototype of this new theory, ''the third law''. McMullin showed how the Singlehypothetico-Blind Trial deductive method was devised. The currently employed came to replace the Aristotelian Medieval method in drug testing is the Double-Blind Trial18th century. In his account, a method which specifies all of McMullin shows that the abstract requirements of its predecessors. It is an apt illustration employment of how new methods are generated through the acceptance hypothetico-deductivism was a result of new theories, as well as how new methods employ accepting that the abstract requirements of their predecessorsworld is more complex than it appears in our observations.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan McMullin (20151988)|ppp. 13232-15234]]These accounts demonstrate how our accepted theories impact our criteria of theory assessment. There have been many other attempts at explicating the way in which methods change, such as the reconstructions of Plato’s method performed by [[David Lindberg]], or the proposal of synchronous change in paradigm shifts by [[Thomas Kuhn]].
{{#evtNevertheless, according to Barseghyan, "what we have had so far is a picture from a bird’s eye perspective. What we lack is the knowledge of the actual mechanism: how exactly can accepted theories shape employed methods?".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 133]]service|History=youtubeBarseghyan's formulation of the third law was the first attempt to address the problem of method employment in the scientonomic context.|idPage Status=BBBxJ8yYrsgEditor Approved|urlargsEditor Notes=startGreat job, Izzy!}}{{YouTube Video|VideoID=253BBBxJ8yYrsg|alignmentVideoStartAt=right253|descriptionVideoDescription=The third law explained by Hakob Barseghyan|containerVideoEmbedSection=frame Description
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=Drug Trial Methods
|Description="How exactly can changes in accepted theories trigger changes in employed methods? What is the precise mechanism of method change? How do methods become employed?".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 136]]
 
Barseghyan presents the example of testing a new drug for alleviating depression to as an example of the third law and in answer to these questions. In summary, the evolution of the drug trial methods is an example of the third law in action. For example, the discovery of the placebo effect in drug testing demonstrates that fake treatment can cause improvement in patient symptoms. As a result of its discovery the abstract requirement of “when assessing a drug’s efficacy, the possible placebo effect must be taken into account” was generated. This abstract requirement is, by definition, an accepted theory which stipulates that, if ignored, substantial doubt would be cast on any trial. As a result of this new theory, the Single-Blind Trial method was devised. The currently employed method in drug testing is the Double-Blind Trial, a method which specifies all of the abstract requirements of its predecessors. It is an apt illustration of how new methods are generated through the acceptance of new theories, as well as how new methods employ the abstract requirements of their predecessors.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 132-152]]
 
Specifically, Barseghyan begins with the question "How can we ensure that the improvement was due to the drug itself and not due to other unaccounted factors?" The question is answered by the implementation of a ''controlled trial'', wherein "we organize a trial with two groups of patients with the same condition – the active group and the control group. Only the patients in the active group receive the drug".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 134]]
<blockquote>What we have here is a transition from one method to another triggered by a new piece of knowledge about the world. The initial method was something along the lines of hypothetico-deductivism: we had a hypothesis “the drug is effective in alleviating depression” and we wanted to confirm it experimentally. Once we learnt that the alleviation may be due to other factors, our initial method was modified to require that a drug’s efficacy must be tested in a controlled trial.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 134]]</blockquote>
 
Another transition in method occurred when upon the discovery of the ''placebo effect'', or the fact "that the improvement in patients’ condition can be due to the patients’ belief that the treatment will improve their condition".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 135]] Now,
<blockquote>it was no longer sufficient to have two groups of patients. If only one of the two groups received the drug then the resulting positive effect could be due to the patients’ belief that the drug was really efficient in alleviating their condition. The solution was to organize a ''blind trial.'' We take two groups of patients with the condition, but this time we make sure that both groups of patients believe that they undergo treatment. However, only the patients of the active group receive the real drug; to the patients in the control group we give a placebo (fake treatment).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 135]]</blockquote>
Once again, Barseghyan writes, "this is an instance of a method change brought about by a change in accepted theories".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 135]]
The third law does not stipulate how methods should go about specifying any <blockquote>But why are we forced to introduce this new abstract requirement. The third law functions as a descriptive account to our method of how methods changedrug testing? Well, and is not responsible for describing how methods ought to change. As such, it is an effective means because this new requirement follows deductively from two elements of explicating the requirements mosaic – from our knowledge that the results of other employed methodstesting a hypothesis about a drug’s efficacy may be voided by the placebo effect and from a more fundamental requirement that we must accept only the best available hypotheses. The Aristotelian-Medieval method is one such example of its utility[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.137]]</blockquote>
In Barseghyan’s explication of Notably, "while the new requirement is abstract (“the possible placebo effect must be taken into account”), the Aristotelian-Medieval blind trial methodis concrete, he illustrates for it prescribes how Aristotelian natural philosophy impacted exactly the testing should be done. Thus, ''the blind trial method of '' specifies the timenew abstract requirement. Most notable This is the acceptance relation of teleology – ''implementation'': a theory which states that every thing has a nature it seeks to fulfill (e.g. an acorn’s nature is to become an oak tree). It stood to reason that more concrete method implements the nature requirements of a thing can only be intuitively grasped more abstract method by an experienced personmaking them more concrete".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. This fundamental belief generated a method which specifies these requirements known as 138]] That is, ''the Aristotelian-Medieval blind trial method, and '' is an illustration of how employed methods are deductive consequences not the only possible ''implementation'' of the accepted theories of abstract requirement to take the placebo effect into account.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 138]] In Barseghyan's words, "the timesame abstract requirement can have many different implementations".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.139]]
A final change in method occurred when ''experimenter's bias'' was discovered:<blockquote>The third law has also proven useful researchers that are in explicating such requirements contact with patients can give patients conscious or unconscious hints as Confirmed Novel Predictions (CNP). According to the hypothetico-deductive method, a theory which challenges our accepted ontology must provide CNP in order to become acceptedgroup is which. However, It is possible that the history positive effect of CNP has been the drug established in a point of confusion for some time. By blind trial was due to the Third Law, one can show fact that the requirement of CNP has not always been expected of new theories. When Newton published his Principia, CNP patients in the placebo group knew that they were not given a requirement placebo. The method of his professed method, drug testing was modified yet they were still providedagain to reflect this newly discovered phenomenon. The contemporary approach is to perform a double-blind trial where neither patients nor researchers know which group is which.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. On the other hand, Clark’s law of diminishing returns had no such predictions135-136]]</blockquote>  {{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Double Blind Trial Deduction (Barseghyan-2015-139). This png}}  The ''double-blind trial method'' is because Newton’s proposal a further example of unobservable entities, such as gravity and absolute space, challenged the accepted ontology relation of ''implementation''.|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=The Double-Blind Trial Method (Two Scenarios for Method Employment)|Description=As Barseghyan explains, ''the time, while Clark’s simply accounted for double-blind trial method'' "is based on our belief that by performing a double-blind trial we forestall the data already available. Thuschance of unaccounted effects, in utilizing the Third Lawplacebo effect, one can discover both when certain criteria become an implicit rule and under what conditions they are necessaryexperimenter’s bias".|Resource=[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|Formulation File=The Third Law Barseghyan 2015p.png141]]  |Prehistory=The basic idea propositions that this premise is based on in turn derive from theories that are acecpted; for example, "our belief that a trial with two similar groups minimizes the chance of unaccounted effects follows from our knowledge about statistical regularities, i.e. from our belief that two statistically similar groups can be expected to behave similarly ''the third lawceteris paribus'' is not new".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. A number 142]] Similarly, our knowledge of philosophers have suggested physiology and psychology lead to our understanding that our beliefs about we can void the world shape how we engage placebo effect with the worldfake pills.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. Different versions 142]] Our knowledge of this idea psychology allows us to understand that researchers can be found in the works bias patients from their own knowledge of which group is which.[[Thomas KuhnCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]]Clearly, these premises, although trivial, are currently accepted within our scientific mosaic.[[Paul FeyerabendCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]]Hence, the ''double-blind trial method'', although an ''implementation'' of abstract requirements, is still based on our currently accepted theories. This is true in all scenarios of ''implementation''.[[Dudley ShapereCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 142]] Thus, methods follow deductively from elements of the mosaic whether they follow strictly from theories and methods or implement abstract requirements. This is an important similarity between the two scenarios for method employment.|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Aristotelian-Medieval Method|Description=In Barseghyan’s explication of the Aristotelian-Medieval method, he illustrates how Aristotelian natural philosophy impacted the method of the time.[[Larry LaudanCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 143]]Most notable is the acceptance of teleology – a theory which states that every thing has a nature it seeks to fulfill (e.g. an acorn’s nature is to become an oak tree). The best theories, then, would uncover the nature of a thing. If only the best theories are acceptable, this leads to the abstract requirement that "A theory is acceptable only if it grasps the nature of a thing". It stood to reason that the nature of a thing can only be intuitively grasped by an experienced person. This fundamental belief, and combined with the abstract requirement outline above, led to a method which specifies these requirements known as the Aristotelian-Medieval method: "A proposition is acceptable if it grasps the nature of a thing through intuition schooled by experience, or if it is deduced from general intuitive propositions".[[Ernan McMullinCiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 145]]This is an illustration of how employed methods are deductive consequences of the accepted theories of the time.|Example Type=Historical}}{{Theory Example|Title=Confirmed Novel Predictions|Description=The ''third law'' has also proven useful in explicating such requirements as Confirmed Novel Predictions (CNP).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 146-150]]
Most noteworthy is [[Larry Laudan]]’s account According to the hypothetico-deductive method, a theory which challenges our accepted ontology must provide CNP in order to become accepted. However, the history of CNP has been a point of changes in drug trial methodsconfusion for some time. In his ''Science and Values''By the Third Law, Laudan argued one can show that the discovery requirement of previously unaccounted effects resulted in the formulation CNP has not always been expected of new methods of drug testingtheories.[[CiteRef::Laudan When Newton published his Principia (1984~1740)|pp. 38-39]] However, while Laudan’s account hints at aspects CNP were not a requirement of ''his professed method, yet they were still provided. This is also true in the third lawcases of Fresnel's wave theory of light (~1820), Einstein's general relativity (~1920), continental drift theory (1960s), it ultimately conflates [[Method|methods]] and [[Methodology|methodologies]]electroweak unification (1970s).[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|ppp. 130-131146]]
Ernan McMullin’s accounts On the other hand, Clark’s law of historical methods offer another example of a prototype diminishing returns (1900) had no such predictions. They also played no role in the acceptance of Mayer's lunar theory (1760s), Coulomb'the third s inverse square law''. McMullin showed how (early 1800s), the implicit method used by Galileo was at odds with the method he professed to use three laws of thermodynamics (1850s), and that which was actually employed at the timequantum mechanics (1927).[[CiteRef::Allen Barseghyan (19882015)|p. 146]]
Furthermore, McMullin showed how the hypothetico-deductive method came to replace the Aristotelian Medieval method Barseghyan explains that this indicates that is because "we do expect confirmed novel predictions but only in the 18th centuryvery special circumstances. In his account, McMullin shows that the employment of There was one common characteristic in all those episodes… they all altered our views on the hypothetico-deductivism was a result structural elements of accepting that the world is more complex than it appears in our observations".[[CiteRef::McMullin Barseghyan (19882015)|pp. 32-34p.146]] These accounts demonstrate how For instance, in our key examples, Newton’s proposal of unobservable entities, such as gravity and absolute space, challenged the ''accepted theories impact our implicit requirements ontology'' of the time, while Clark’s simply accounted for investigating the worlddata already available.
There have Barseghyan presents his historical hypothesis that this specific requirement for CNP has been many employed in natural science since the 18th century. Assuming he is correct (for the sake of argument), he continues: "The ''third law'' stipulates that the requirement of confirmed novel predictions could become employed only if it was a deductive consequence of the accepted theories and other attempts at explicating employed methods of the time. So a question arises: what theories and methods does this requirement follow from?".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 147-148]]  Barseghyan answers the question with two principles. For one, there is a principle, implicit in our contemporary mosaic and accepted since the eighteenth century, that states: "the way world is more complex than it appears in which methods changeobservations, that there is more to the world than meets the eye".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 148]] Thus, observations may not tell the whole story, such as the reconstructions what we observe may an effect of Plato’s method performed by David Lindbergan unobservable. Secondly, or "it has been accepted since the proposal of synchronous change early eighteenth century that, in paradigm shifts principle, any phenomenon can be produced by Thomas Kuhnan infinite number of different underlying mechanisms".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|History=p. 148]] "This was leads us to the thesis of underdetermination that, in principle, any finite body of evidence can be explained in an infinite number of ways".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 148]] Therefore: <blockquote> The abstract requirement that follows from these two principles is that whenever we assess a theory that introduces some new internal mechanisms (new types of sub-stances, particles, forces, fields, interaction, processes etc.) we must take into account that this hypothesized internal mechanism may turn out to be fictitious even if it manages to predict the known phenomena with utmost precision. In other words, we ddo not tolerate "fiddling" with the first attempt ''accepted ontology;'' if a theory attemptes to address modify the problem accepted ontology, it must show that it is not cooked-up.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 148]]</blockquote> This abstract requirement can then be implemented in several ways, including through our contemporary requirement of ''confirmed novel predictions''. This is an illustration of the second scenario of method employment . Thus, in utilizing the scientonomic contextthird law, one can discover both when certain criteria become an implicit rule and under what conditions they are necessary.|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Accepted by Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2016
|Accepted From Month=January
|Accepted From Day=141
|Accepted From Approximate=Yes
|Acceptance Indicators=The law became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=No
|Accepted Until Era=CE
|Accepted Until Year=2017
|Accepted Until Month=January
|Accepted Until Day=21
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}{{Acceptance Record|Accepted by Community=Community:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=CE|Accepted From YearRejection Indicators=The law became rejected as a result of the acceptance of Sebastien's [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016|Accepted From Month=April)|Accepted From Day=14|Accepted From Approximate=No|Accepted Until Era=CE|Accepted Until Approximate=No}}{{Acceptance Record|Accepted by Community=Communitynew formulation of the Third Law]]. For details, refer to [[Modification:Scientonomy|Accepted From Era=BCE|Accepted From Year=Sciento-2016|Accepted From Month=November|Accepted From Day=14|Accepted From Approximate=No-0001|Accepted Until Era=CE|Accepted Until Approximate=Nothe modification]].
}}
Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/Special:MobileDiff/6611...18735"

Navigation menu