Changes

|Description=One species of normative propositions are [[Methodology|methodologies]], the rules of theory assessment openly prescribed by a scientific community, are one species of normative propositions. Methodologies are ''prescriptive'', as they describe prescribe how theory assessment within a scientific community ''ought'' to be performed. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed methodologies. For example: eighteenth and nineteenth century scientists openly accepted a version of the ''empiricist inductivist methodology'', which required new theories to be deducible from phenomena and not posit any unobservable entities. However, these scientists still accepted theories that posited unobservable entities, such as phlogiston, electric fluid, or absolute space.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|pp. 52-53]] This seems to violate either [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] or [[The Zeroth Law (Harder-2015)|the zeroth law]] of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are always deductive consequences of accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where accepted methodologies and employed methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific mosaic are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another. How can this paradox be resolved?

|Prehistory=A|History=Within the scientonomic context, it was at first unclear whether normative propositions could hold a place within a scientific mosaic and, therefore, be considered within the scope of scientonomy. This uncertainty also applied to included methodological dicta; it . The problem became acute when the paradox of normative propositions was proposed identified by Joel Burkholder in 2013. In 2015, Barseghyan noted that a full-fledged theory of scientific changefurther theoretical work, together with empirical evidence from the historyof scientific change, could attempt would be needed to settle the issue.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 60]] At The problem was that time, however, including methodologies in the scientific mosaic appeared to result in a violation of the theory third law of scientific change did not include normative propositions until the acceptance of modifications suggested by [[Zoe Sebastien]] - modifications , which included changing the definition of theory then stated: a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from “a set other employed methods and accepted theories of propositions that attempt to describe something” to “a set the time. The problem arose because of propositions”.[[CiteRef::Sebastien (2016)]] This new definition clear historical evidence of theory could include normative propositions conflict between espoused methodologies andactual employed methods. If employed methods must be deducible from other methods or methodologies, as discrepancies between accepted methodologies and employed methods would result in a resultviolation of the law, because methods must then follow deductively from accepted methodologies. HoweverNot only was the third law violated but, regarding this new definition of ‘theory’ as encompassing methodologiesif an employed method and an accepted methodology were incompatible with one another, the zeroth law would be violated, since the law maintains that, at any moment, a paradox appears when this definition comes into contact with other components of the theory of scientific changetheories in the mosaic will be compatible.

Once The theory of scientific change did not include normative propositions and methodologies began until a resolution to count as theories, the paradox of normative propositions aroseproposed by [[Zoe Sebastien]] was accepted by the scientonomic community in 2016. The problem was modifications consequently accepted included changing the definition of theory from “a set of propositions that it appeared attempt to describe something” to violate the third law “a set of scientific change, which statedpropositions”.[[CiteRef:: a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods Sebastien (2016)]] This new definition of theory could include normative propositions and accepted theories of the time. If employed methods can must be deducible from other methods or methodologies, differences in methods and methodologies would as a result in a violation - either methods can follow from , methodologies or they can’t. Not only was the third law violatedHowever, the incompatibility regarding this new definition of the conjuncts of the paradox (that methodologies count ‘theory’ as theories; and the third law stating that methods should follow from said encompassing methodologies) resulted in the zeroth law’s violation as, according to a paradox appears when this definition comes into contact with other components of the law, at any moment, the theories in a mosaic must be compatibletheory of scientific change.