Ah! #Protoscience! In the philosophy of #science, there are several definitions of #protoscience. Protoscience is sometimes distinguished from #pseudoscience by a willingness to be changed through new evidence. Compare fringe science, which is considered highly speculative or even strongly refuted. Some protosciences go on to become an accepted part of mainstream science. Philosopher of chemistry #JaapBrakel defines protoscience as the study of normative criteria for the use of experimental technology in science.’ On protoscience #ThomasKuhn said that they generate testable conclusions but ... nevertheless resemble philosophy and the arts rather than the established sciences in their developmental patterns. I think, for example, of fields like chemistry and electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, of the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth, or of many of the #socialsciences today. While noting that they meet the demarcation criteria of falsifiability from Popper, he questions whether the discussion in protoscience fields result[s] in clear-cut progress. Kuhn concluded that protoscience, like the #arts and #philosophy, lack some element which, in the mature sciences, permits the more obvious forms of #progress. It is not, however, anything that a methodological prescription can provide. ... I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had’. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience tsu.co/MeganElizabethMorris/26053205
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 03:09:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015