Difference between revisions of "The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Year Formulated=2016 | |Year Formulated=2016 | ||
|Formulation Text=A method becomes employed when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. | |Formulation Text=A method becomes employed when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time. | ||
| − | |Description=The [[The Third Law (Barseghyan, 2015)|initial formulation]] of the law, proposed by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'', stated that a [[Method|method]] becomes [[Method Employment|employed]] only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.132]] | + | |Description=The [[The Third Law (Barseghyan, 2015)|initial formulation]] of the law, proposed by Barseghyan in ''The Laws of Scientific Change'', stated that a [[Method|method]] becomes [[Method Employment|employed]] only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p.132]] 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)]] |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | 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]]. | ||
|Resource=Sebastien (2016) | |Resource=Sebastien (2016) | ||
|Formulation File=The Third Law Sebastien 2016.png | |Formulation File=The Third Law Sebastien 2016.png | ||
| + | }} | ||
| + | {{Acceptance Record | ||
| + | |Accepted by Community=Community:Scientonomy | ||
| + | |Accepted From=2016 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 20:42, 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.
- ^ Laudan, Larry. (1984) Science and Values. University of California Press.
- a b c Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
- ^ McMullin, Ernan. (1988) The Shaping of Scientific Rationality: Construction and Constraint. In McMullin (Ed.) (1988), 1-47.
- ^ Kuhn (1962)
