Difference between revisions of "The Paradox of Normative Propositions"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | {{Descriptive | + | {{NonDefinitional Topic |
| + | |Topic Type=Descriptive | ||
|Question=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? | |Question=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? | ||
|Parent Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment | |Parent Topic=Mechanism of Method Employment | ||
Revision as of 02:55, 3 September 2016
References
- a b c d Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
- ^ Burkholder, Joel. (2014) Protomethod, The Third Law, and Ethical Propositions. Unpublished manuscript.
- a b c 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.
