Difference between revisions of "The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "{{Descriptive Theory |Title=The Third Law |Alternate Titles=the law of method employment |Question Answered=Mechanism of Method Employment |Authors List=Zoe Sebastien, |Year F...") |
|||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
[[File:The_Third_Law_Barseghyan_2015.png|center|367px]] | [[File:The_Third_Law_Barseghyan_2015.png|center|367px]] | ||
| − | In | + | In that formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which this reformulation attempts to solve.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] |
This reformulation of the law makes explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them. This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet [[The Zeroth Law|compatible]] with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]]. | This reformulation of the law makes explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them. This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet [[The Zeroth Law|compatible]] with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]]. | ||
Revision as of 14:23, 18 August 2016
References
- a b 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.
- ^ Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
