Difference between revisions of "Mechanism of Method Employment"

Revision as of 21:06, 30 August 2016

^ Laudan (1984)
^ McMullin, Ernan. (1988) The Shaping of Scientific Rationality: Construction and Constraint. In McMullin (Ed.) (1988), 1-47.
a b c Barseghyan, Hakob. (2015) The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
^ Sebastien, Zoe. (2016) The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 1, 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/26947.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 |History=In the context of scientonomy the answer to this question has been traditionally provided by ''the third law''. Until 2016 it was the third law as formulated by [[Hakob Barseghyan]].[[CiteRef::Barseghyan (2015)|p. 54]]
-After the acceptance of [[Zoe Sebastien]]'s [[Modification:2016-0001|suggested modification]] in 2016, the answer to the question of method employment is provided by Sebastien's formulation of the third law.
+In this formulation, it wasn't clear whether employed methods follow from ''all'' or only ''some'' of the accepted theories and employed methods of the time. This led to a logical paradox which was [[Modification:2016-0001|resolved]] by Sebastien in 2016. In her reformulation of the law, Sebastien made explicit that an employed method need not necessarily follow from ''all'' other employed methods and accepted theories but only from ''some'' of them. This made it possible for an employed method to be logically inconsistent and yet [[The Zeroth Law|compatible]] with openly accepted [[Methodology|methodological dicta]].
 |Related Topics=Mechanism of Theory Acceptance, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change,
 |Related Theories=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015), The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),