Deducibility in Method Employment
What does deducibility in the Third Law mean? Does it refer to the deducibility of Classic Logic, or to a logic accepted by the community at the time?
The current formulation of the Third Law requires that a method be deducible from at least a subset of accepted theories and employed methods. However, it remains open as to what deducibility here is to mean, as the notion of deducibility varies with reference to the logic assumed, as well as perhaps the definition of a Theory.
One approach is to assume that newly employed methods must be deducible in the rules of Classical Logic, but this runs the risk of historical anachronism. The immediate alternative would be to assume that methods must be deducible in the rules of the logic accepted by the community at the time, but this poses an issue for observational scientonomy, in that it allows potential 'hand-waving.' If the employment of a method would violate the Third Law, then it can be posited that the community in question merely accepted a different logic, especially without establishing indicators of the accepted logic.
Lastly, it was discussed whether the notion of deducibility is required in the Mechanism of Method Employment at all.
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Calahan Janik-Jones and Patrick Fraser in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community. At the moment, the question has no accepted answer in Scientonomy.
|Community||Accepted From||Acceptance Indicators||Still Accepted||Accepted Until||Rejection Indicators|
|Scientonomy||1 March 2018||It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.||Yes|
There is currently no accepted answer to this question.
This topic is a sub-topic of Mechanism of Method Employment.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):