What Makes a Good Theory, and How Do We Make a Theory Good?

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Methodology
• Research Ethics

Background:

• Evaluating scientific theories is crucial for scientific progress.
• Existing frameworks may not adequately address ethical and practical considerations.
• The perspective of a scientist practitioner offers unique insights into theory evaluation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To present an ontology of criteria for evaluating scientific theories.
• To establish a formal framework, a 'metatheoretical calculus', for adjudicating theories.
• To encourage dialogue and iterative refinement of theory evaluation criteria.

Main Methods:

• Development of a formal ontology of criteria for theory evaluation.
• Identification of four key criteria: metaphysical commitment, discursive survival, empirical interface, and minimizing harm.
• Conceptual framework integrating theory assessment with ethical and practical considerations.

Main Results:

• An ontology comprising metaphysical commitment, discursive survival, empirical interface, and minimizing harm is proposed.
• Metaphysical commitment involves identifying assumed or essential theoretical components.
• Discursive survival assesses a theory's comprehensibility and resilience to scrutiny.
• Empirical interface examines theory-observation relationships.
• Minimizing harm addresses the ethical implications and historical abuses associated with theory development.

Conclusions:

• The proposed metatheoretical calculus provides a structured approach for scientists to evaluate theories.
• The criteria encourage a holistic assessment, including ethical and practical dimensions.
• Practitioners are urged to adopt and refine these criteria for robust theory adjudication.