Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
no edit summary
''TODO: These questions should be incorporated in their respective articles.''
* It is a historical fact that methods and methodologies can be present in the same mosaic despite being inconsistent. This is not a problem for the TSC, since the Zeroth Law (reformulated as the Law of Compatibility) allows for inconsistent elements to exist in the same mosaic. However, a historical question remains as to how the compatibility criteria of a given mosaic allows of the co-existence of inconsistent methods and methodologies. How For example, how is the hypothetico-deductive method compatible with an inductivist methodology?
* Has our criteria of compatibility, which accepts inconsistencies, become vacuous or trivial? (Jennifer Whyte, 2016)
* There is currently an open question regarding the status of technological knowledge in the mosaic, and whether they should be formulated as “accepted” or “useful” beliefs. (Sean Cohmer, 2015). In addition, we can ask how technological research tools relate to employed methods. Currently, according to the TSC, knowledge concerning technical tools takes the forms of accepted beliefs, of the kind “telescopes are useful tools for examining distant celestial bodies”. This in turn leads to the employment of telescopes as a method for examining celestial bodies. However, are there technological tools that are used independently of any method? (Paul Patton, 2016) One possibility might be the technique of brainstorming: we commonly use it as a research technique, but don’t seem to formulate it as a method. (Hakob Barseghyan, 2016)
