Difference between revisions of "The Third Law (Sebastien-2016)"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:
 
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)
 +
|History=The law replaced Barseghyan's [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|original formulation of the Third Law]]. Sebastien's third law was the first to be accepted by [[Community:Scientonomy|Scientonomy community]] via the scientonomic mechanism of modifications.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Acceptance Record
 
{{Acceptance Record

Revision as of 16:41, 21 January 2017

This is an answer to the question Mechanism of Method Employment that states "A method becomes employed only when it is deducible from some subset of other employed methods and accepted theories of the time."

The Third Law Sebastien 2016.png

This version of The Third Law was formulated by Zoe Sebastien in 2016.1 It is also known as the law of method employment. It is currently accepted by Scientonomy community as the best available answer to the question.

Scientonomic History

The law replaced Barseghyan's original formulation of the Third Law. Sebastien's third law was the first to be accepted by Scientonomy community via the scientonomic mechanism of modifications.

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this theory:
CommunityAccepted FromAcceptance IndicatorsStill AcceptedAccepted UntilRejection Indicators
Scientonomy21 January 2017The law became accepted as a result of the acceptance of the respective suggested modification.Yes

Suggestions To Accept

Here are all the modifications where the acceptance of this theory has been suggested:

Modification Community Date Suggested Summary Verdict Verdict Rationale Date Assessed
Sciento-2016-0001 Scientonomy 3 September 2016 Accept a new formulation of the third law to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from all accepted theories and employed methods but only from some. Accepted 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 21 January 2017

Suggestions To Reject

These are all the modifications where the rejection of this theory has been suggested:

Modification Community Date Suggested Summary Verdict Verdict Rationale Date Assessed
Sciento-2022-0002 Scientonomy 28 February 2022 Accept the new law of norm employment that fixes some of the issues of the current law of method employment and makes it applicable to norms of all types. Open

Question Answered

The Third Law (Sebastien-2016) is an attempt to answer the following question: How do methods become employed by an epistemic agent?

See Mechanism of Method Employment for more details.

Description

Sebastien's third law explained by Gregory Rupik
The initial third law explained by Hakob Barseghyan

The initial formulation of the law, proposed by Barseghyan in The Laws of Scientific Change, stated that a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time.2p.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.1

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 compatible with openly accepted methodological dicta.

Reasons

No reasons are indicated for this theory.

If a reason supporting this theory is missing, please add it here.

Questions About This Theory

There are no higher-order questions concerning this theory.

If a question about this theory is missing, please add it here.

References

  1. 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.
  2. ^  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.