Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Modification:Sciento-2016-0001 (view source)
Revision as of 01:09, 20 August 2016
, 01:09, 20 August 2016no edit summary
{{Modification
|Summary=Accept a new formulation of the third law to solve the paradox identified by Burkholdermake it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from ''all'' accepted theories and employed methods but only from ''some''.
|Year Suggested=2016
|Authors List=Zoe Sebastien
|Resource=Sebastien (2016)
|Preamble=Currently, a [[theory]] is defined as a set of propositions that attempts to describe something. This definition excludes ''normative propositions'' from the scope of the TSC. Normative theories, such as those of methodology or ethics, have been excluded since including them appears to give rise to a destructive paradox first identified by Joel Burkholder. There are many historical cases where employed [[Method|scientific methods]] are known to conflict with professed [[Methodology|methodologies]]. This seems to violate [[The Third Law|the third]] and [[The Zeroth Law|zeroth laws]] of scientific change. By the third law, employed methods are deducible from accepted theories. But, this seems impossible in cases where methodologies and methods conflict. Under the zeroth law, all elements in the scientific are compatible with one another. But, that seems to be clearly not the case if methodologies and methods conflict with one another.
|Modification=Reformulate the third law in order to make it clear that employed methods do not have to be deducible from ''all'' accepted theories and employed methods but only from ''some'': [[File:The_Third_Law_Sebastien_2016.png|center|367px]]aaa
|To Accept=The Third Law (Sebastien-2016),
|To Reject=The Third Law (Barseghyan-2015),