The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend that changes in this stance are to be traced and explained by scientonomy. Thus, we formulate a new law of theory demarcation to account for changes in scientificity within the scientonomic framework. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0013]: Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories. Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry: Scientificity: How should scientificity be defined? Scientificity of Methods: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards methods? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific methods? Scientificity of Questions: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards questions? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific questions? [Sciento-2018-0014]: Accept the following law as a new scientonomic axiom: The Law of Theory Demarcation: if a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain. Accept that the law of theory demarcation is not a tautology. Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry: Indicators of Theory Scientificity: What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? Can traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journals be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place? Indicators of Conclusiveness for Scientificity Assessment: What are the historical indicators that an assessment by the demarcation criteria was conclusive or inconclusive? Does the lack of agreement or evidence count in favor of inconclusive assessment outcome?
The current formulation of the zeroth law (the law of compatibility) is marred with a number of theoretical problems, which necessitate its reformulation. In this paper, we propose that compatibility is an independent stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. We then provide a new definition of compatibility criteria to reflect this change. We show that the content of the zeroth law is deducible from our definition of compatibility. Instead of a static law of compatibility, we propose a new dynamic law of compatibility that explains how the stance of compatibility obtains. Unlike the zeroth law, this new law has empirical content, as it forbids certain conceivable scenarios. Having established these notions, we propose a classification space that exhaustively covers all the possible states a theory may occupy and all the transitions it may undergo during its lifecycle. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2018-0015]: Accept the following definition of compatibility: Compatibility ≡ the ability of two elements to coexist in the same mosaic. Also accept the following corollary: Compatibility Corollary: at any moment of time, the elements of the scientific mosaic are compatible with each other. Accept that all theorems that take the current zeroth law as their premise are recoverable when the compatibility corollary is used as a premise instead. Reject the zeroth law. [Sciento-2018-0016]: Accept compatibility as a distinct epistemic stance that can be taken towards epistemic elements of all types. Also accept that compatibility is binary, reflexive, and symmetric. Transitivity of compatibility holds only within mosaics, not sui generis. [Sciento-2018-0017]: Accept the following definition of compatibility criteria: Compatibility Criteria ≡ criteria for determining whether two elements are compatible or incompatible. Reject the previous definition of compatibility criteria. [Sciento-2018-0018]: Accept the following law of compatibility as a scientonomic axiom: The Law of Compatibility: if a pair of elements satisfies the compatibility criteria employed at the time, it becomes compatible within the mosaic; if it does not, it is deemed incompatible; and if assessment is inconclusive, the pair can become compatible, incompatible, or its status may be unknown. [Sciento-2018-0019]: Accept the new definition of theory acceptance: Theory Acceptance ≡ an accepted theory is a scientific theory that is taken as the best available description or prescription of its object. Reject the previous definition of theory acceptance. [Sciento-2018-0020]: Accept the following theorem: Demarcation-Acceptance Synchronism theorem: every theory that becomes accepted satisfies the demarcation criteria employed at the time of acceptance.
Quantum mechanics is strictly incompatible with local realism. It has been shown by Bell and others that it is possible, in principle, to experimentally differentiate between local realism and quantum mechanics. Numerous experiments have attempted to falsify local realism; however, they have consistently failed to close the detection loophole under strict locality conditions, thereby allowing local realistic explanations for their observations. In 2015, three experiments took place that tested local realism without the impediments of these significant loopholes. Between these three experiments, a substantial data set was collected. All of the collected data show a strong violation of local realism and strong support for quantum mechanics. This article reviews the theoretical basis of Bell tests and the affiliated loopholes, as well as the methods employed by these recent experiments and the implications of the results they observed.La mécanique quantique est strictement incompatible avec le réalisme local. Bell et d'autres scientifiques ont montré qu'il est possible, en théorie, de trouver la différence entre le réalisme local et la mécanique quantique expérimentalement. De nombreuses expériences ont tenté de falsifier le réalisme local; cependant, elles ont toujours échoué à combler la faille de détection dans des conditions de localité strictes, permettant ainsi des explications réalistes locales pour leurs observations. En 2015, trois expériences ont testé le réalisme local sans les entraves de ces failles importantes. Entre ces trois expériences, des données substantielles ont été recueillies. Toutes les données recueillies ont montré une forte déviation du réalisme local et un appui solide pour la mécanique quantique. Cet article examine les bases théoriques des tests de Bell et les failles affiliées, ainsi que les méthodes employées par ces expériences récentes et les implications des résultats des expériences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.