editor
93
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Deducibility in Method Employment (view source)
Revision as of 06:44, 7 March 2018
, 06:44, 7 March 2018Created page with "{{Topic |Question=What does deducibility in the Third Law mean? Does it refer to the deducibility of Classic Logic, or to a logic accepted b..."
{{Topic
|Question=What does deducibility in the [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Third Law]] mean? Does it refer to the deducibility of Classic Logic, or to a logic accepted by the community at the time?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=The current formulation of the Third Law requires that a method be deducible from at least a subset of accepted theories and employed methods. However, it remains open as to what ''deducibility'' here is to mean, as the notion of deducibility varies with reference to the logic assumed, as well as perhaps the definition of a [[Theory]].
One approach is to assume that newly employed methods must be deducible in the rules of Classical Logic, but this runs the risk of historical anachronism. The immediate alternative would be to assume that methods must be deducible in the rules of the logic accepted by the community at the time, but this poses an issue for observational scientonomy, in that it allows potential 'hand-waving.' If the employment of a method would violate the Third Law, then it can be posited that the community in question merely accepted a different logic, especially without establishing indicators of the accepted logic.
Lastly, it was discussed whether the notion of ''deducibility'' is required in the Mechanism of Method Employment at all.
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment
|Authors List=Patrick Fraser, Calahan Janik-Jones,
|Formulated Year=2018
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018,
|Related Topics=Deriving Methods from an Empty Set, Employed Method,
|Page Status=Stub
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2018
|Accepted From Month=March
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
|Question=What does deducibility in the [[The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)|Third Law]] mean? Does it refer to the deducibility of Classic Logic, or to a logic accepted by the community at the time?
|Topic Type=Descriptive
|Description=The current formulation of the Third Law requires that a method be deducible from at least a subset of accepted theories and employed methods. However, it remains open as to what ''deducibility'' here is to mean, as the notion of deducibility varies with reference to the logic assumed, as well as perhaps the definition of a [[Theory]].
One approach is to assume that newly employed methods must be deducible in the rules of Classical Logic, but this runs the risk of historical anachronism. The immediate alternative would be to assume that methods must be deducible in the rules of the logic accepted by the community at the time, but this poses an issue for observational scientonomy, in that it allows potential 'hand-waving.' If the employment of a method would violate the Third Law, then it can be posited that the community in question merely accepted a different logic, especially without establishing indicators of the accepted logic.
Lastly, it was discussed whether the notion of ''deducibility'' is required in the Mechanism of Method Employment at all.
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment
|Authors List=Patrick Fraser, Calahan Janik-Jones,
|Formulated Year=2018
|Academic Events=Scientonomy Seminar 2018,
|Related Topics=Deriving Methods from an Empty Set, Employed Method,
|Page Status=Stub
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2018
|Accepted From Month=March
|Accepted From Day=1
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Acceptance Indicators=It was acknowledged as an open question by the [[Scientonomy Seminar 2018]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
