Difference between revisions of "Modification:Sciento-2016-0001"
m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | {{Modification | |
| + | |Summary=Accept a new formulation of the third law to solve the | ||
| + | |Year Suggested=2016 | ||
| + | |Resource=Sebastien (2016) | ||
| + | |Authors List=Zoe Sebastien | ||
| + | |Preamble=Currently, a [[theory]] is defined as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something. This definition excludes ''normative propositions'' from the scope of the TSC. Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology|methodologies]]. This seems to violate [[The Third Law|the third]] and [[The Zeroth Law|zeroth laws]] of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where methodologies and methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another. | ||
| + | |Modification=Reformulate the third law in order to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from ''all'' accepted theories and employed methods but only from ''some'': | ||
| − | + | [[File:TheThirdLaw_Sebastien_2016.png|center|367px]] | |
| − | |||
| − | + | |Parent Modification= | |
| − | + | |Verdict=Open | |
| − | + | |Year Assessed= | |
| − | + | |Verdict Rationale= | |
| − | + | }} | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 16:43, 16 August 2016
Accept a new formulation of the third law to solve the
The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Zoe Sebastien on 3 September 2016.1 The modification was accepted on 21 January 2017.
Contents
Preamble
Currently, a theory is defined as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something. This definition excludes normative propositions from the scope of the TSC. Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed scientific methods are known to conflict with professed methodologies. This seems to violate the third and zeroth laws of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where methodologies and methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another.
Modification
Reformulate the third law in order to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from all accepted theories and employed methods but only from some:
Theories To Accept
- The Third Law (Sebastien-2016): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
- Resolution to the Paradox of Normative Propositions (Sebastien-2016): 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.
Theories To Reject
- The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015): A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.
Questions Answered
This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):
- Mechanism of Method Employment: How do methods become employed by an epistemic agent?
- The Paradox of Normative Propositions: 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?
Verdict
The modification was accepted on 21 January 2017. 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
Click on the Discussion tab for comments.
References
- ^ 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.
