editor, Administrators
2,020
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
When the TSC was initially formulated, it made no mention of the status of [[Theory#Descriptive and Normative|normative propositions]] in relation to the scientific mosaic. In 2014, Joel Burkholder identified a problem that would arise if normative propositions, such as, ethical conceptions or [[Methodology|methodologies]] – were included in the mosaic. If this were the case, then by [[The Third Law|the third law]], methods would have to be deducible from accepted methodologies. However, the history of science shows that methodologies and methods often conflict. How, then, can the latter be a deductive consequence of the former?
In 2015, [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0002|Zoe Sebastien proposed]] that the definition of “[[theory]]” should be changed to include both descriptive and normative propositions. She showed how this change could be implemented without violating [[The Zeroth Law|the law of compatibility]]. Her [[Modification:Sciento-2016-0002|suggestion]] became [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] in 2016.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]]
|Current View=Currently, a ''scientific mosaic'' is defined as a collection of all [[Theory Acceptance|accepted]] theories and [[Method Employment|employed]] methods.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 5]] A ''[[Theory|theory]]'' is defined as any set of propositions, descriptive or normative,[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] while a ''[[method]]'' is defined as a set of requirements employed in theory assessment.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 3-10]]
