editor
44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
* The second law in its current formulation (as a conditional statement) allows for the possibility that a theory meets the requirements of the employed method but is not accepted. However the TSC's current position on the matter is that if the outcome of theory assessment is acceptance, the theory is necessarily accepted. TO-DO: reformulate the second law be reformulated to take this into account. (Mirka Loiselle)
List of Open Questions (view source)
Revision as of 20:14, 26 February 2016
, 20:14, 26 February 2016→Seminar 2016
* In what circumstances can the views of an individual scientist be indicative of the views of their community? (Jacob MacKinnon, Joshua Payne Smith)
* Is it possible for a community to say that they do not accept a theory, but in reality they do? Are there any historical examples of a case like this? (Jaqueline Sereda)
* If a theory is accepted in violation of the second law, should we ignore this in our historical analysis, or should the TSC attempt to explain these instances? (Jacob MacKinnon)
* Can we apply the "accepted/used/pursued" distinction to methods?
* How do normative propositions (e.g ethics) affects method employment? Or does it only affect method "use"?
* The 3rd Law states Asynchronism of Method Employment theorem says that employment of methods is not always necessarily a method is employed when it implements "some" result of the acceptance of new theories. But surely all methods (even concrete implementations of abstract requirements ) are employed simultaneously with the acceptance of other employed methodsa descriptive proposition which states that that method is effective. Doesn’t Does this pose poses a risk challenge towards the Asynchronism of “cherry-picking” abstract requirementsMethod Employment theorem? TO-DO: Reformulate 3rd law to specify which abstract requirements an employed method should implement. (Jacob MacKinnonMirka Loiselle)
