Popper and his commentators on the discovery of Neptune: A close shave for the law of gravitation?

Bamford, Greg

doi:10.1016/0039-3681(95)00045-3

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Once again, this kind of categorization is called not so much for serving the purpose of distinguishing between true and false theories but for identifying scientifically sound theories and delineating the boundaries of these theories in order to make them applicable. It is generally agreed both among researchers and philosophers of science that one neither can tell when certain theory is true nor it can be identified when theory is false (Grosser, 1962; Maxwell, 1972; Musgrave, 1973; Lakatos, 1974; Grünbaum, 1976; Jones and Perry, 1982; Maher, 1990; Millman, 1990; Bamford, 1996; Persson, 2016). Imre Lakatos famously concluded that neither confirmations nor refutations have any epistemic value whatsoever (Lakatos, 1974).…”

Section: Falsificationism and Theory Boundaries: Defining A Strength And Weakness Of Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

Aksom

Tymchenko

2020

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis essay raises a concern about the trajectory that new institutionalism has been following during the last decades, namely an emphasis on heterogeneity, change and agentic behavior instead of isomorphism and conformist behavior. This is a crucial issue from the perspective of the philosophy and methodology of science since a theory that admits both change and stability as a norm has less scientific weight then a theory that predicts a prevalence of passivity and isomorphism over change and strategic behavior. The former provides explanations and predictions while the latter does not.Design/methodology/approachThe paper offers an analysis of the nature, characteristics, functions and boundaries of institutional theories in the spirit of philosophy and methodology of science literature.FindingsThe power of the former institutional theory developed by Meyer, Rowan, DiMaggio and Powell lies in its generalization, explanation and prediction of observable and unobservable phenomena: as a typical organizational theory that puts forward directional predictions, it explains and predicts the tendency for organizations to become more similar to each other over time and express less strategic and interest-driven behavior, conforming to ever-increasing institutional pressures. A theory of isomorphism makes scientific predictions while its modern advancements do not. Drawing on Popper's idea of the limit of domains of explanation and limited domains of theories we present two propositions that may direct our attention towards the strength or weakness of institutional theories with regard to their explanations of organizational processes and behavior.Practical implicationsThe paper draws implications for further theory building in institutional analysis by suggesting the nature of institutional explanations and the place of institutional change in the theoretical apparatus. Once institutional theory explains the tendency of the system towards equilibrium, there is no need to explain the origins and causes of radical change per se. Institutional isomorphism theory explains and predicts how even after radical changes organizational fields will move towards isomorphism, that is, institutional equilibrium. The task is, therefore, not to explain agency and change but to show that it is natural and inevitable processes that organizational field will return to isomorphic dynamics and move towards homogenization no matter how much radical change occurred in this field.Originality/valueThe paper discusses the practical problems with instrumental utility of institutional theories. In order to be useful any theory must clearly delineate its boundaries and offer explanations and predictions and it is only the former 1977/1983 institutional theory that satisfies these requirements while modern advancements merely offer ambiguous theoretical umbrellas that escape empirical tests. For researchers therefore it is important to recognize which theory can be applied in a given limited domain of research and which one has little or no value.

show abstract

Section: Falsificationism and Theory Boundaries: Defining A Strength And Weakness Of Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

Aksom

Tymchenko

2020

JOCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many anomalies are explained away with further investigation, resulting in new discoveries. The planet Neptune, for example, was discovered when scientists investigated an exception to the predictions of Newton’s theory of gravity (see Bamford, 1996). Indeed, testable theory is valuable precisely because it focuses attention on exceptional cases and motivates the kind of “puzzle solving” that characterizes theoretically advanced fields (Kuhn, 1996; Lakatos, 1970).…”

Section: The Geometry Of Moralistic Suicidementioning

confidence: 99%

Suicide as Social Control¹

Manning¹

2012

Sociological Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suicide may be moralistic in nature—a response to conduct the perpetrator defines as deviant. Moralistic suicide can be explained with a general theory of social control. Donald Black’s theories of social control explain the handling of grievances with their social structure—or geometry—as defined by the social characteristics and relationships of those involved in a conflict. Here I draw on Black’s paradigm of pure sociology and theories of social control to identify the social structure of moralistic suicide. For example, moralistic suicide varies directly with social closeness and is greater in an upward direction than in a downward direction. This theory is simple, general, testable, and explains variation not addressed by previous theories of suicide.

show abstract

“…Risky predictions are those that would be unlikely were it not for the theory. To take an example from another domain of science, perhaps one of the most remarkable instances of a risky prediction occurred more than 150 years ago, when two astronomers observed that the orbit of Uranus deviated from the orbit anticipated by Newtonian physics and determined that these deviations could be explained by the presence of an as yet unseen planet (Bamford, 1996). Using Newtonian physics, they predicted the presence and precise location of this previously undiscovered celestial body and, startlingly, their prediction was correct.…”

Section: Stage 3: Testing Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling psychopathology: From data models to formal theories.

Haslbeck¹,

Ryan²,

Robinaugh³

et al. 2021

Psychological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, there has been a surge of empirical research investigating mental disorders as complex systems. In this article, we investigate how to best make use of this growing body of empirical research and move the field toward its fundamental aims of explaining, predicting, and controlling psychopathology. We first review the contemporary philosophy of science literature on scientific theories and argue that fully achieving the aims of explanation, prediction, and control requires that we construct formal theories of mental disorders: theories expressed in the language of mathematics or a computational programming language. We then investigate three routes by which one can use empirical findings (i.e., data models) to construct formal theories: (a) using data models themselves as formal theories, (b) using data models to infer formal theories, and (c) comparing empirical data models to theory-implied data models in order to evaluate and refine an existing formal theory. We argue that the third approach is the most promising path forward. We conclude by introducing the abductive formal theory construction (AFTC) framework, informed by both our review of philosophy of science and our methodological investigation. We argue that this approach provides a clear and promising way forward for using empirical research to inform the generation, development, and testing of formal theories both in the domain of psychopathology and in the broader field of psychological science.

show abstract

Popper and his commentators on the discovery of Neptune: A close shave for the law of gravitation?

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

Suicide as Social Control¹

Modeling psychopathology: From data models to formal theories.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Popper and his commentators on the discovery of Neptune: A close shave for the law of gravitation?

Cited by 15 publications

References 9 publications

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

How institutional theories explain and fail to explain organizations

Suicide as Social Control1

Modeling psychopathology: From data models to formal theories.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Suicide as Social Control¹