editor, Administrators
146
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{PrintDiagramFile|diagram file=Static-procedural-methods.jpg}}
This theorem explains why all procedural methods are necessarily static. By definition all procedural methods don’t presuppose contingent propositions but only necessary ones. Thus, from a conjunction of: 1. the Method Rejection Theorem (derived in turn from the First Law for Methods and the Zeroth Law or Law of Compatibility), 2. the premise that no procedural method can be incompatible with any other methods, either procedural or substantive, and 3. the premise that procedural methods cannot be replaced by any other methods, it follows that all procedural methods are necessarily static.
Can a procedural method be replaced by another procedural method? No, because procedural methods only presuppose necessary truths and by definition they cannot be incompatible with each other, as they hold in all possible worlds. Therefore, no procedural method can be incompatible with or replace another procedural method. For example, a newly accepted mathematical theorem that has been derived from other accepted and necessarily true mathematical propositions gets accepted into the mosaic (by the Second Law). This theorem in turn can lead to a new procedural method, but this method cannot be incompatible with the other employed methods, for the same reason the theorem cannot be incompatible with previously proven theorems.
Can a procedural method be replaced by a substantive method? No, because substantive methods, by definition, presuppose at least some contingent proposition while procedural methods only necessary ones, which are compatible with any truth, whether contingent or necessary, already accepted into the mosaic. Therefore, no substantive method can be incompatible with or replace any procedural method. For example: if the deductive acceptance method, whereby a propositon follows deductively from other accepted propositions, were not to be accepted, this would imply a violation of the very definition of deductive inference, according to which truth is transmitted from the premises to the conclusion.
Static Procedural Methods theorem (Barseghyan-2015) (view source)
Revision as of 22:15, 10 November 2023
, 22:15, 10 November 2023no edit summary
{{Theory
|Topic=Static vs. Dynamic Methods
|Theory Type=Descriptive
|Subject=
|Predicate=
|Title=Static Procedural Methods theorem
|Theory TypeAlternate Titles=|Title Formula=|Text Formula=Descriptive
|Formulation Text=All procedural methods are necessarily static.
|Formulation FileObject=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg|Topic=Static vs. Dynamic Methods
|Authors List=Hakob Barseghyan,
|Formulated Year=2015
|Formulation File=Static-procedural-methods-theorem-box-only.jpg
|Description=A [[Procedural Method|procedural method]] is a method which doesn't presuppose any contingent propositions; it can only presuppose necessary truths such as those of mathematics or logic. Given the nature of necessary truths, it is impossible for one such truth to contradict another necessary truth since it must be true in all possible worlds. Therefore, it follows from the '''Method Rejection''' theorem that, since there can be no elements at odds with a necessary truth, any procedural method is, in principle, static.
|Resource=Barseghyan (2015)
|Prehistory=Philosophers of science up until [[Karl Popper]] and [[Imre Lakatos]] typically believed that there was at least one element of the scientific mosaic immune to change. For most, this static element was believed to be a transhistorical scientific method. Philosophers have not always agreed what this static [[Method#Prehistory|method]] should be, but almost all until the second half of the twentieth century believed that the scientific method should be an unchanging element in a scientific mosaic.[[CiteRef::Hoyningen-Huene (2008)]]
More recently, the debate between Laudan and Worrall[[CiteRef::Laudan (1984a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1988)]][[CiteRef::Laudan (1989a)]][[CiteRef::Worrall (1989)]] elucidated the distinction between two questions about static methods. First, an empirical question: have there been any methods which have not changed through history? And second, a theoretical question: Are there any methods which are, in principle, immune to change? Both Worrall and Laudan agreed that there exist [[Substantive Method|substantive methods]] shaped by contingent proposition and therefore not static. However, Laudan held that no methods have ever been [[Procedural Method|procedural]] — shaped by only necessary propositions and therefore immune to change — whereas Worrall contents that certain methods, such as the hypothetico-deductive method, are in fact procedural and historically have formed the base of scientific reasoning.
|History=
|Page Status=Needs Editing
|Editor Notes=
}}
{{Acceptance Record
|Acceptance Indicators=The theorem became ''de facto'' accepted by the community at that time together with the whole [[The Theory of Scientific Change|theory of scientific change]].
|Still Accepted=Yes
|Accepted Until Era=
|Accepted Until Year=
|Accepted Until Month=
|Accepted Until Day=
|Accepted Until Approximate=No
|Rejection Indicators=
}}
