Difference between revisions of "The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)"

From Encyclopedia of Scientonomy
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "{{NonDefinition |Title=The Zeroth Law |Theory Type=Descriptive |Alternate Titles=the law of compatibility |Formulation Text=At any moment of time, the elements of the scientif...")
 
Line 22: Line 22:
 
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
 
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
 
|Prehistory=The idea that our beliefs should not contradict each other is one of the oldest in philosophy. It can be traced, at least, to the time of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)[[CiteRef::Carnielli and Marcos (2001)]]. In classical logic, it derives from the principle of explosion, which states that a contradiction entails every other sentence. Any system of beliefs that contains a contradiction, since it compels belief in anything and everything, is therefore known as a trivialism. This deceptively simple premise is implicit in most philosophies of science, and in philosophy overall. For this reason it is rarely stated outright within a philosophical or scientific framework. However, the use of contradictions to reject particular theories is important in frameworks as diverse as Isaac Newton’s Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning (non-contradiction is the fourth)[[CiteRef::Newton (1689)]], [[CiteRef::Smith (2007)]] and [[Karl Popper]]’s 'Logic of Scientific Discovery'[[CiteRef::Popper (2005)]].
 
|Prehistory=The idea that our beliefs should not contradict each other is one of the oldest in philosophy. It can be traced, at least, to the time of Aristotle (384-322 BCE)[[CiteRef::Carnielli and Marcos (2001)]]. In classical logic, it derives from the principle of explosion, which states that a contradiction entails every other sentence. Any system of beliefs that contains a contradiction, since it compels belief in anything and everything, is therefore known as a trivialism. This deceptively simple premise is implicit in most philosophies of science, and in philosophy overall. For this reason it is rarely stated outright within a philosophical or scientific framework. However, the use of contradictions to reject particular theories is important in frameworks as diverse as Isaac Newton’s Four Rules of Scientific Reasoning (non-contradiction is the fourth)[[CiteRef::Newton (1689)]], [[CiteRef::Smith (2007)]] and [[Karl Popper]]’s 'Logic of Scientific Discovery'[[CiteRef::Popper (2005)]].
−
|History=The Zeroth Law was introduced into the [[Theory of Scientific Change]] (TSC) as the Law of Consistency. In its initial 2012 formulation the Zeroth Law stated that “at any moment of time, the elements of a scientific mosaic are consistent with each other”. In 2013 Rory Harder discovered that this formulation could not be correct. In his paper “Scientific Mosaics and the Law of Consistency,” [[CiteRef::Harder (2013)]] he raised two arguments against the Law of Consistency, one logical and one historical.
+
|History=''The zeroth law'' was introduced into the [[The Theory of Scientific Change|the theory of scientific change]] (TSC) as ''the law of consistency''. In its initial 2012 formulation the zeroth law stated that “at any moment of time, the elements of a scientific mosaic are consistent with each other”. In 2013 Rory Harder discovered that this formulation could not be correct. In his paper “Scientific Mosaics and the Law of Consistency,” [[CiteRef::Harder (2013)]] he raised two arguments against the Law of Consistency, one logical and one historical.
  
 
The Logical Argument: A [[Scientific Community|scientific community]] cannot always know all the logical consequences of its [[Theory|theories]] at the time of their acceptance. Logical consequences of theories often emerge later, in the course of scientific research. Therefore, scientists can never rule out the possibility that their mosaic contains a contradiction. Thus, the presence of contradiction in the consequences of the theory cannot be what determines its presence in a mosaic.  
 
The Logical Argument: A [[Scientific Community|scientific community]] cannot always know all the logical consequences of its [[Theory|theories]] at the time of their acceptance. Logical consequences of theories often emerge later, in the course of scientific research. Therefore, scientists can never rule out the possibility that their mosaic contains a contradiction. Thus, the presence of contradiction in the consequences of the theory cannot be what determines its presence in a mosaic.  
Line 28: Line 28:
 
The Historical Argument: There are historical instances in which a scientific community has knowingly accepted a contradiction. One such example is the contradiction in the current mosaic between consequences of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity and quantum mechanics [[CiteRef::Harrison (2000)]].  Einstein's relativity maintains that all signals are local. That is, no signal can travel faster than light. Quantum theory, on the other hand, predicts faster than light influences.  This has been known since the 1930's [[CiteRef::Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1934)]], yet both quantum theory and relativity remain in the mosaic.  
 
The Historical Argument: There are historical instances in which a scientific community has knowingly accepted a contradiction. One such example is the contradiction in the current mosaic between consequences of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity and quantum mechanics [[CiteRef::Harrison (2000)]].  Einstein's relativity maintains that all signals are local. That is, no signal can travel faster than light. Quantum theory, on the other hand, predicts faster than light influences.  This has been known since the 1930's [[CiteRef::Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1934)]], yet both quantum theory and relativity remain in the mosaic.  
  
−
Therefore, we cannot stipulate strict non-contradiction in a descriptive scientonomic theory, since at least one historical example contradicts it. Based on these two challenges to the Law of Consistency, Rory Harder proposed to reformulate the Zeroth Law as The Law of Compatibility. This new formulation was accepted by the Scientonomy community.
+
Therefore, we cannot stipulate strict non-contradiction in a descriptive scientonomic theory, since at least one historical example contradicts it. Based on these two challenges to the law of consistency, Rory Harder proposed to reformulate the zeroth law as the law of compatibility. This new formulation was accepted by the Scientonomy community.
 
}}
 
}}
 
{{Acceptance Record
 
{{Acceptance Record

Revision as of 03:05, 5 September 2016

Template:NonDefinition

References

  1. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r  Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
  2. ^  Carnielli, Walter and Marcos, Joano. (2001) Ex Contradictione Non Sequitur Quodlibet. Bulletin of Advanced Reasoning and Knowledge 1, 89-109.
  3. ^  Newton, Isaac. (1687) Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). Pepys, London.
  4. ^  Smith, George. (2009) Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathmatica. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2009/entries/newton-principia/.
  5. ^  Popper, Karl. (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson & Co.
  6. ^ Neurath (1973) 
  7. ^ Quine and Ullian (1978) 
  8. ^  Harder, Rory. (2013) Scientific Mosaics and the Law of Consistency. Unpublished manuscript.
  9. ^  Fine, Aurthur. (2013) The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument in Quantum Theory. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/qt-epr/.
  10. ^  Fraser, Patrick and Sarwar, Ameer. (2018) A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change. Scientonomy 2, 67-82. Retrieved from https://scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/31278.
  11. ^  Priest, Graham; Tanaka, Koji and Weber, Zachary. (2015) Paraconsistent Logic. In Zalta (Ed.) (2016). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/logic-paraconsistent/.
  12. ^ Bueno et al (1998) 
  13. ^  Einstein, Albert; Podolsky, Boris and Rosen, Nathan. (1935) Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? Physical Review 47, 777-780.
  14. ^ Meheus (2003) 
  15. ^ Meheus(2003) 
  16. ^ Smith(1988) 
  17. ^ Smith (1988) 

Retrieved from "https://www.scientowiki.com/index.php?title=The_Zeroth_Law_(Harder-2015)&oldid=7993"