editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
The Logical Argument: We begin from our 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. As Barseghyan explains:
The Historical Argument: There <blockquote>while ascertaining that no two accepted propositions are historical instances mutually inconsistent might be a viable task in a mosaic with only a handful of propositions, the task may prove virtually impossible in which a more complex mosaic. In addition, even if the community somehow manages to ascertain logical consistency of all openly accepted propositions, there will still remain a possibility that some of the logical consequences of two accepted theories are mutually inconsistent.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.153]]</blockquote> As we have seen, it is possible that a scientific community has may knowingly accepted accept a contradiction, and indeed, there are historical instances of this phenomenon. One such example is the contradiction in the current mosaic between consequences of Einstein's theories of special and general relativity and quantum mechanics.(See Below) [[CiteRef::Fine (2013)]] 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 (1935)]] yet both quantum theory and relativity remain in the mosaic.
The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 18:51, 10 February 2023
, 18:51, 10 February 2023no edit summary
|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.
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.
|VideoDescription=The zeroth law explained by Hakob Barseghyan
|VideoEmbedSection=Description
}}
{{Theory Example
|Title=General Relativity and Quantum Physics
|Description=Barseghyan writes that "the conflict between general relativity and quantum physics is probably the most famous illustration of this phenomenon," that phenomenon being the knowing acceptance of two contradicting theories by a community. "We normally take general relativity as the best description of the world at the level of massive objects and quantum physics as the best available description of the micro-world. But we also know that, from the classical logical perspective, the two theories contradict each other. The inconsistency of their conjunction becomes apparent when they are applied to objects that are both extremely massive and extremely small (i.e. a singularity inside a black hole)".[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)||pp.154]]
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 (1935)]] yet both quantum theory and relativity remain in the mosaic. Yet, despite the existence of this contradiction, the community accepts both theories as the best available descriptions of their respective domains.
|Example Type=Historical
}}
{{Acceptance Record
