Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016) (view source)
Revision as of 04:35, 3 September 2016
, 04:35, 3 September 2016Created page with "{{NonDefinition |Title=Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions |Theory Type=Descriptive |Formulation Text=The new third Law suggested by Sebastien is 2016 resolves..."
{{NonDefinition
|Title=Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=The new third Law suggested by Sebastien is 2016 resolves the paradox by making clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''.
|Topic=The Paradox of Normative Propositions
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien,
|Formulated Year=2016
|Description=The paradox of normative propositions arises from the following three premises:
# there have been many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] conflicted with professed [[Methodology|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 (Harder-2016)|the zeroth law]].
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2016
|Accepted From Month=September
|Accepted From Day=3
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
|Title=Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=The new third Law suggested by Sebastien is 2016 resolves the paradox by making clear that employed methods don't necessarily follow from ''all'' accepted theories, but only from ''some''.
|Topic=The Paradox of Normative Propositions
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien,
|Formulated Year=2016
|Description=The paradox of normative propositions arises from the following three premises:
# there have been many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] conflicted with professed [[Methodology|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 (Harder-2016)|the zeroth law]].
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Community=Community:Scientonomy
|Accepted From Era=CE
|Accepted From Year=2016
|Accepted From Month=September
|Accepted From Day=3
|Accepted From Approximate=No
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
}}
