What is the minimum logic required for scientific change to occur?
Understanding logic as a set of inference rules, which determine properties such as deducibility. Some mechanisms of scientific change, such as the Third Law, make reference to logical properties, although the logic assumed in the formulation is not stated.
No matter what the logic used, it remains an open question as to what the minimum possible set inference of rules must be accepted by a community, or assumed to be universal to all communities, to enable scientific change to occur given the current formulation of the Third Law. Would it be possible for a community with no accepted rules of inference whatsoever to exist, and undergo scientific change? Has this ever occurred historically?
In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Hakob Barseghyan 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.
The following related topic(s) currently lack an accepted answer:
- 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 topic has no accepted answer in Scientonomy.
This topic is a sub-topic of Necessary Theories.
This topic is also related to the following topic(s):
Calahan Janik-Jones (100.0%)