Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016)
This is an answer to the question The Paradox of Normative Propositions that states "The new third law resolves the paradox of normative propositions by making it clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from all accepted theories, but only from some."
Logically speaking, the third law as stated: “A method is employed only if it follows from other methods or theories,” seems to imply a universality: all other employed methods, all accepted theories in the scientific mosaic. Zoe Sebastien’s resolution to the paradox of normative propositions specifies that the universal implications need not be the case. The resolution as applied to the third law, would read that employed methods didn’t follow from all accepted theories, but some. This new formulation has been accepted.
|21 January 2017
|The solution to the paradox became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.
Suggestions To Accept
Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:
|3 September 2016
|Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from all accepted theories and employed methods but only from some.
|There was a community consensus that "the new formulation of the third law does bring an additional level of precision to our understanding of the mechanism of method change".c1 The community agreed that the new formulation "makes a clarification that, on its own, warrants this modification's acceptance".c2 Importantly, it was also agreed that the modification "solves the paradox of normative propositions".c3
|21 January 2017
Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016) is an attempt to answer the following question: If methodologies are themselves theories that can be accepted by a community, then how can methods be deductive consequences of accepted theories, given that historically employed methods and accepted methodologies have often been inconsistent with one another?
See The Paradox of Normative Propositions for more details.
The paradox of normative propositions arises from the following three premises:
- there have been many historical cases where employed scientific methods conflicted with professed methodologies;
- by the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories, including methodologies;
- two proposition cannot be mutually inconsistent if one logically follows from another.
Sebastien's solution rejects premise (2), by clarifying that an employed method shouldn't necessarily follow from all accepted theories, but only from some. In those cases, when an employed method is in conflict with an accepted methodology, it is an indication that the former doesn't follow from the latter. As for their mutual inconsistency, that is allowed by the zeroth law.
No reasons are indicated for this theory.
If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.
Questions About This Theory
There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.
If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.
- Sebastien, Zoe. (2016) The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 1, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/26947.