Changes

As the "science of science" [[scientonomy]] seeks a purely descriptive account of processes of change in the [[scientific mosaic]] and therefore encompasses only historical and theoretical questions. Keeping descriptive scientific questions distinct from questions of normative methodology avoids numerous pitfalls. For example, those who conflate the two sometimes argue that because some method is known to have flaws of logical consistency or soundness, it cannot possibly have been the one that was, in fact, used by scientists. However, there is a great deal historical evidence that scientists actually have used logically flawed methods. Inductive reasoning is a ubiquitous part of science, despite its [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/ well known flaws][[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 19-20]]. The intrusion of normative concerns would could also undermine scientonomy's aspirations to scientific status. If any laws of scientific change discovered were accorded normative force they would become tautological truths incapable being called into question by empirical inquiry.