Deducibility in Method Employment

What does deducibility in the the law of method employment mean? Does it refer to the deducibility of classic logic, or to a logic accepted by the community at the time?

The current formulation of the law of method employment asserts that a method becomes employed when it is deducible from some accepted theories and employed methods. However, it is unclear as to what deducibility here is to mean, as the notion of deducibility varies from logic to logic. One approach is to assume that newly employed methods must be deducible in the rules of classical logic, but this runs the risk of historical anachronism. The immediate alternative would be to assume that methods must be deducible in the rules of the logic accepted by the community at the time, but this poses an issue for observational scientonomy, in that it allows potential 'hand-waving.' If the employment of a method would violate the law of method employment, then it can be posited that the agent in question merely accepted a different logic, especially without establishing indicators of the accepted logic.

In the scientonomic context, this question was first formulated by Calahan Janik-Jones and Patrick Fraser in 2018. The question is currently accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by Scientonomy community.

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question can be summarized as follows:

• A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.
• A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic.

Scientonomic History

Acceptance Record

Here is the complete acceptance record of this question (it includes all the instances when the question was accepted as a legitimate topic for discussion by a community):

Community	Accepted From	Acceptance Indicators	Still Accepted	Accepted Until	Rejection Indicators
Scientonomy	1 March 2018	It was acknowledged as an open question by the Scientonomy Seminar 2018.	Yes

All Theories

According to our records, no theory has attempted to answer this question.

If an answer to this question is missing, please click here to add it.

Accepted Theories

According to our records, no theory on this topic has ever been accepted.

Suggested Modifications

According to our records, there have been no suggested modifications on this topic.

Current View

In Scientonomy, the accepted answers to the question are The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022) and The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022).

Mechanism of Method Employment

The Law of Method Employment (Rawleigh-2022) states: "A method becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic."

This law of method employment is a corollary of Rawleigh's law of norm employment. It implies that, just like the norms of all other types, methods become employed when they are derivable from other elements of the agent's mosaic (such as other theories, other methods, and perhaps even questions). As such, the law preserves most of the content of Sebastien's third law by solving some of the issues inherent in it. See The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022) for a more thorough exposition.

Mechanism of Norm Employment

The Law of Norm Employment (Rawleigh-2022) states: "A norm becomes employed only if it is derivable from a non-empty subset of other elements of the mosaic."

Sebastien's law of method employment faces several problems. Foremost among these is that it is based on an outdated ontology that assumes that methods of theory evaluation are a fundamental epistemic element. After the acceptance of Barseghyan’s proposal that methods be subsumed under the category of normative theories, the third law no longer exhaustively covers all situations cases of employment. In its present form it is limited to methods, though there is no reason to think that the mechanism by which a method is employed is any different than the mechanism by which any other norm is employed.

In addition, Sebastien's formulation of the third law uses the term deducible, which currently lacks a scientonomic definition. We do not currently know what it means for something to be deducible, what the criteria of deducibility would be, or whether the conditions of deducibility would be part of the first-order theories of the mosaic or part of the second-order theories that range over the mosaic.

The third issue with Sebastien's formulation is that, with the acceptance of questions into the epistemic elements of the ontology of scientific change, the elements of the mosaic are now more expansive than just theories and subtypes of theories. This means that there is a plausible situation in which norms could potentially be derived – at least in part – from questions, which means that a formulation of the third law that excludes questions would fail to comprehensively describe all cases of norm employment.

The new law of norm employment aims to remedy all three of these issues:

• the formulation of the covers all norms rather than only methods;
• it replaces a deducible with derivable, which in the context of mathematical model theory simply means to be semantically entailed, and thus can potentially include non-deductive inferences (e.g. inductive, abductive);
• it replaces a specific enumeration of epistemic elements with a general "elements of the mosaic".

This formulation also offers the slight clarification that derivability strictly deals with derivation from a finite number of other elements.

Related Topics

This question is a subquestion of Mechanism of Method Employment.

This topic is also related to the following topic(s):

• Employed Method
• Deriving Methods from an Empty Set