Changes

|Description=One species of normative propositions are [[Methodology|methodologiesMethodologies]], 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?

|Formulated Year=20132014|History=Within the scientonomic context, it was at first initially unclear whether normative propositions (such as those of methodology or ethics) fell within the scope of scientonomy and could hold a place within a scientific mosaic and, therefore, within . The problem became acute when ''the scope paradox of scientonomy. This uncertainty also applied to methodological dicta; it normative propositions'' was proposed that a full-fledged theory of scientific change, together with history, could attempt to settle the issueidentified by Joel Burkholder in 2014.[[CiteRef::Barseghyan Burkholder (20152014)|p. 60]] At that timeAs a result, however, the theory of scientific change did not include normative propositions until the acceptance of modifications suggested by in [[Zoe SebastienBarseghyan (2015)|''The Laws of Scientific Change'']] - modifications which included changing Barseghyan left the definition question of theory from “a set the status of normative propositions open, by noting that attempt further theoretical work coupled with historical evidence would be needed to describe something” to “a set of propositions”settle the issue.[[CiteRef::Sebastien Barseghyan (20162015)|p. 60]] This new definition of theory could include normative propositions and, as a result, methodologies. However, regarding this new definition of ‘theory’ as encompassing methodologies, a paradox appears when this definition comes into contact with other components of the theory of scientific change.

Once normative propositions and methodologies began to count as theories, the paradox of normative propositions arose. The problem was that it appeared to violate including methodologies in the scientific mosaic would result in violations of the third law of scientific change. At the time, which [[The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015)|the third law]] stated: that "a method becomes employed only when it is deducible from other employed methods and accepted theories of the time". But if ''methodologies'' were to be considered ''theories'', then, by the third law, employed ''methods'' would have to be deductive consequences of accepted methodologies. among other things. If employed methods can must be were deducible from other methods or accepted methodologies, differences in then how could there ever be any discrepancy between employed methods and accepted methodologies would result in ? This wouldn't make any sense from a violation - either methods can follow from methodologies or they can’tlogical perspective. Not only  The theory of scientific change did not include normative propositions until a resolution to the paradox of normative propositions proposed by [[Zoe Sebastien]] was accepted by the third law violated, scientonomic community in 2017. The modifications consequently accepted included changing the incompatibility definition of the conjuncts ''theory'' from "a set of propositions that attempt to describe something" to "a set of the paradox propositions".[[CiteRef::Sebastien (that methodologies count as theories; 2016)]] This new definition of ''theory'' could include normative propositions and the third law stating that methods should follow from said methodologies) resulted in the zeroth law’s violation , asa result, according to the law, at any moment, the theories in a mosaic must be compatiblemethodologies.