Difference between revisions of "Modification:Sciento-2017-0002"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
|Date Suggested Day=23
 
|Date Suggested Day=23
 
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
 
|Date Suggested Approximate=No
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien,
+
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien
 
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
 
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
 
|Preamble=Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded from the ontology of scientific change since including them appears to give rise to [[The Paradox of Normative Propositions|a destructive paradox]] first identified by [[Joel Burkholder]]. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology|methodologies]]. This seems to violate [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third]] and [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|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.  
 
|Preamble=Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded from the ontology of scientific change since including them appears to give rise to [[The Paradox of Normative Propositions|a destructive paradox]] first identified by [[Joel Burkholder]]. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology|methodologies]]. This seems to violate [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third]] and [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|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.  
Line 13: Line 13:
 
Since the paradox of normative propositions has been resolved (see modification [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|Sciento-2016-0001]]), it is now possible to bring the normative theories back into the mosaic as proper elements of the ontology of scientific change.
 
Since the paradox of normative propositions has been resolved (see modification [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0001|Sciento-2016-0001]]), it is now possible to bring the normative theories back into the mosaic as proper elements of the ontology of scientific change.
 
|Modification=Modify the ontology of scientific change by accepting that both ''descriptive'' and ''normative'' theories can be part of a mosaic. Consequently, modify the definition of ''theory acceptance'' to make it possible for both descriptive and normative theories to be accepted.
 
|Modification=Modify the ontology of scientific change by accepting that both ''descriptive'' and ''normative'' theories can be part of a mosaic. Consequently, modify the definition of ''theory acceptance'' to make it possible for both descriptive and normative theories to be accepted.
|To Accept=Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Sebastien-2017), Theory Acceptance (Sebastien-2016),
+
|To Accept=Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Sebastien-2017), Normative Theory Is a Subtype of Theory (Sebastien-2016), Theory Acceptance (Sebastien-2016)
|To Reject=Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015),
+
|To Reject=Epistemic Elements - Theories and Methods (Barseghyan-2015), Theory Acceptance (Barseghyan-2015)
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2017-0001,
+
|Parent Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2017-0001
 
|Automatic=No
 
|Automatic=No
|Incompatible Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2016-0002,
+
|Incompatible Modifications=Modification:Sciento-2016-0002
 
|Verdict=Accepted
 
|Verdict=Accepted
 
|Date Assessed Year=2017
 
|Date Assessed Year=2017
Line 24: Line 24:
 
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
 
|Date Assessed Approximate=No
 
|Verdict Rationale=The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-31|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-34|c2]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c4]]</sup>
 
|Verdict Rationale=The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-31|c1]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-34|c2]] [[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c3]]</sup> It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".<sup>[[Modification_talk:Sciento-2017-0002#comment-38|c4]]</sup>
 +
|Superseded By=
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 17:23, 22 January 2023

Accept a new ontology of scientific change where the two fundamental elements are theories - both descriptive and normative - and methods.

The modification was suggested to Scientonomy community by Zoe Sebastien on 23 January 2017.1 This modification presupposes the acceptance of Sciento-2017-0001. This modification is incompatible with Sciento-2016-0002. The modification was accepted on 15 February 2017.

Preamble

Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded from the ontology of scientific change since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed 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.

Since the paradox of normative propositions has been resolved (see modification Sciento-2016-0001), it is now possible to bring the normative theories back into the mosaic as proper elements of the ontology of scientific change.

Modification

Modify the ontology of scientific change by accepting that both descriptive and normative theories can be part of a mosaic. Consequently, modify the definition of theory acceptance to make it possible for both descriptive and normative theories to be accepted.

Theories To Accept

Acceptance Sebastien 2016.png

Theories To Reject

Questions Answered

This modification attempts to answer the following question(s):

Verdict

The modification was accepted on 15 February 2017. The community has agreed that after the solution of the paradox of normative propositions, there are no obstacles for including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change.c1 c2 c3 It was also agreed that including normative propositions into the ontology of scientific change "would allow us to grasp the role that methodological and ethical rules play in science".c4

Click on the Discussion tab for comments.

References

  1. ^  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.